The Great Flood

[Hrothbern]

That the sea level was higher at some past point was already noted by philosophers, eg specifically (at least) Xenophanes, in the 6th century BC. Afaik he saw fossilized remains of sea creatures inside mountain caves, for example.

Those fossilised sea creatures in mountain areas is interesting enough perhaps the reason that the ancient Hebrew thought, like that ancient Greek, that the flood reached as high as the mountains.
Including an Ark at the Mount Ararat, which is a very high mountain (5,137 meter).
Much too high too imagine the earth flooded to anything near that altitude.

That mountains were generated by earth pressed upward was beyond there imagination.

 

[Kyriakos]

Those fossilised sea creatures in mountain areas is interesting enough perhaps the reason that the ancient Hebrew thought, like that ancient Greek, that the flood reached as high as the mountains.
Including an Ark at the Mount Ararat, which is a very high mountain (5,137 meter).
Much too high too imagine the earth flooded to anything near that altitude.

That mountains were generated by earth pressed upward was beyond there imagination.

I am not sure how they would explain it - eg in ancient Greece. Going by the epics, or the theogonia etc, you see many spectacular theories and descriptions. For example the underworld having massive palaces, and ending in a 'great abyss' ^^

 

[Berzerker]

Ice Age is not a documentary.

where'd I say it was?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

@Valka D'Ur.
There is plenty of evidence.

Oh, cool. Where? Archaeologists have been searching for a long time, and I'm sure they'd appreciate any tips you could give them.

The fact that a document which instead of using debate, or eliminated all competition, that we are used to using as an ideological filter, the publishers relied on internal means to keep the body in tack. They were not interested in providing evidence that what was being copied from generation to generation was provided. They were told to make sure no mistakes were made in the process. The Old Testament was the most copied and scribed, by several different groups, body of writing during the thousand plus years of its formation. That is what I am trying to point out. That is what the historical criticism of the 18th century brought out. I understand the claims that information may have been added or exaggerated. There is proof that several different sources attempted to maintain, while adding to this body of work new and every day experiences. But there is no proof that any information was made up as re-writing any previous history, because there was never a need to prove what was being copied down from generation to generation. There was no questioning of what was being written down. Unlike the secrecy of most ancient written or oral stories that were only given to the initiated. It was not until the creation of Latin, that the Bible was removed from public availability and only used by approved officials.

I could copy and recopy and recopy the entire output of the stories of Robert Heinlein, and it wouldn't make them true. People could recopy them, word for word and punctuation mark for punctuation mark for millennia, and it wouldn't make them true. The fact is that most of his stories aren't even plausible science fiction anymore, since we gained new information from the Viking, Pioneer, and Voyager probes that mean his stories couldn't possibly happen.

Were there times that the Jews or Hebrews attempted to hide this document from the public? Of course, but that was because the rulers did not want the public aware of what this document had to say. The process may have even been interrupted or stopped, but it was never completely killed. I do not think that it can just be relegated as a religious text though, like all religious text. It had a civil, and judicial component built in, besides the religious. Neither was it supposed to be hidden or private, but available for everyone who called themselves Hebrew or Jewish and all those they had dealings with them. The civil, judicial, and religious were all included in maintaining copies of this work from generation to generation. That was the built in check and redundancy to preserve from the beginning of the work, until it was considered closed and completed.

Yes, I'm aware that there were times when the reigning monarch or other kind of ruler didn't want the commoners to know what was in the bible. Can't have the common people reading it, understanding it, thinking for themselves, and questioning the interpretations and spin their rulers and religious authorities were putting on it.

Henry VIII flip-flopped between Catholicism, Protestantism, and whatever weird mix of the two that occurred to him, depending on which wife he was married to, and if he was receptive to whatever whisper campaigns his courtiers were conducting against them on any particular day. In the case of Catherine Parr, on one day he'd praise her for writing a prayer book, and the next day he was accusing her of sin and witchcraft, saying the bible prohibited women from reading, writing, discussing, or even thinking any religious thoughts not permitted by their husbands. She only escaped execution because Henry died first.

If that were the case, it would have been settled 200 years ago.

LOL. You expect one set of scholars to agree with other sets of scholars about the religion that all of them claim to follow?

If things were "settled" they wouldn't have anything to argue about, would they?

I guess that depends on what is a religion, what is holy, and what is a book.

I hope we're not going to argue about what a book is.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Generally speaking anyone who says: "Don't listen to the experts, they don't know anything, listen to me instead" is not worth listening to.

The experts are experts for a reason, they specialize in understanding the exact things we are discussing here. We don't.

Your experts are experts because they tell you what you want to hear. While that can be a useful skill it isn't all that impressive.

Plotinus is one of our local experts on Christianity and he has several well-read threads on the matter. I'm pretty sure that the best experts on complex subjects have credentials that involve research and writing on the subject matter. The internet has made it very easy to claim expertise when none actually exists.

 

[timtofly]

Those fossilised sea creatures in mountain areas is interesting enough perhaps the reason that the ancient Hebrew thought, like that ancient Greek, that the flood reached as high as the mountains.
Including an Ark at the Mount Ararat, which is a very high mountain (5,137 meter).
Much too high too imagine the earth flooded to anything near that altitude.

That mountains were generated by earth pressed upward was beyond there imagination.

Are we ruling out the fact that there may not have been any mountains until after this event? How high mountains are do not determine their age. It is the composition of rock

Oh, cool. Where? Archaeologists have been searching for a long time, and I'm sure they'd appreciate any tips you could give them.


I could copy and recopy and recopy the entire output of the stories of Robert Heinlein, and it wouldn't make them true. People could recopy them, word for word and punctuation mark for punctuation mark for millennia, and it wouldn't make them true. The fact is that most of his stories aren't even plausible science fiction anymore, since we gained new information from the Viking, Pioneer, and Voyager probes that mean his stories couldn't possibly happen.


Yes, I'm aware that there were times when the reigning monarch or other kind of ruler didn't want the commoners to know what was in the bible. Can't have the common people reading it, understanding it, thinking for themselves, and questioning the interpretations and spin their rulers and religious authorities were putting on it.

Henry VIII flip-flopped between Catholicism, Protestantism, and whatever weird mix of the two that occurred to him, depending on which wife he was married to, and if he was receptive to whatever whisper campaigns his courtiers were conducting against them on any particular day. In the case of Catherine Parr, on one day he'd praise her for writing a prayer book, and the next day he was accusing her of sin and witchcraft, saying the bible prohibited women from reading, writing, discussing, or even thinking any religious thoughts not permitted by their husbands. She only escaped execution because Henry died first.


LOL. You expect one set of scholars to agree with other sets of scholars about the religion that all of them claim to follow?

If things were "settled" they wouldn't have anything to argue about, would they?


I hope we're not going to argue about what a book is.

I thought that is what an education was. A place to get tips about how things work. Life goes on and people change their views all the time.

So when people write down their experiences, they all fall into the imagination, science fiction genre? Just because millions of people assume things about the past does not make them facts. I am not the one assuming everything written down is just an imagination another person had. When you flat out assume something, I do not assume you are just imagining it, but your statement seems dogmatic without any proof. Point out where the ancients wrote that they were not actually experiencing reality, but only making it up. You point out that since there is not any remaining proof, therefore it had to be just imagination. Since it was spiritual, it had to just be a feel good story for a moral point. None of these points have to be the truth. They are just acceptable points that help you reconcile what was written.

If you could convince people for 3000 years to copy down those stories without error, would they think that Robert Heinlein was just a figment of your imagination, because that is what you are claiming about the ancients.

A book normally has a binding.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Plotinus is one of our local experts on Christianity and he has several well-read threads on the matter. I'm pretty sure that the best experts on complex subjects have credentials that involve research and writing on the subject matter. The internet has made it very easy to claim expertise when none actually exists.

I like Plotinus.

That said, expertise has nothing to do with truth. I have a narrative. Someone else has a narrative. There are expert witnesses available to support either narrative, and some people may be persuaded to "believe" either narrative. That's life. I try not to lose track of the reality that narratives are not truth.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Are we ruling out the fact that there may not have been any mountains until after this event? How high mountains are do not determine their age. It is the composition of rock

Yes, we are ruling out the notion that there may not have been any mountains until a few thousand years ago.

Since the Rocky Mountains are what I'm most familiar with, I checked to see how old they are. The answer lies in the tens of millions of years, with some rock being over 1.7 billion years old.

So when people write down their experiences, they all fall into the imagination, science fiction genre? Just because millions of people assume things about the past does not make them facts. I am not the one assuming everything written down is just an imagination another person had. When you flat out assume something, I do not assume you are just imagining it, but your statement seems dogmatic without any proof. Point out where the ancients wrote that they were not actually experiencing reality, but only making it up. You point out that since there is not any remaining proof, therefore it had to be just imagination. Since it was spiritual, it had to just be a feel good story for a moral point. None of these points have to be the truth. They are just acceptable points that help you reconcile what was written.

I used Heinlein as an example because I've read many of his books and short stories, and a lot of them are now definitely obsolete - and his name is the first that came to mind. His tales of humans walking around in the open without any kind of protection on Venus and Mars are obsolete. There aren't going to be any farms on Jupiter's moons, at least not without extensive terraforming, and that wouldn't be permitted, now that we know what interesting geological processes are going on there.

And of course if you're trying to start a religion or write things down with the intent that the writings will be used to control other people's thoughts and beliefs and actions, you're not going to say, "This is just something I made up; it's not real." You're going to claim it's the real thing.

If you could convince people for 3000 years to copy down those stories without error, would they think that Robert Heinlein was just a figment of your imagination, because that is what you are claiming about the ancients.

There is copious evidence that Robert Heinlein existed, so I would hope they wouldn't think he's just a figment of the imagination. The stories he wrote, on the other hand, depict things that went on in his imagination. Podkayne of Mars isn't real.

That said, Heinlein did express a concept that makes perfect sense: TANSTAAFL.

A book normally has a binding.

Tell that to the ancient Romans, Greeks, and every other civilization that wrote stuff down on scrolls and clay tablets.

 

[Berzerker]

Are we ruling out the fact that there may not have been any mountains until after this event? How high mountains are do not determine their age. It is the composition of rock

How can the Flood cover the tallest mountains if mountains formed after the Flood? The Appalachians are old and the Rockies, Andes and Himalaya are young - older mountains are more eroded.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

How can the Flood cover the tallest mountains if mountains formed after the Flood? The Appalachians are old and the Rockies, Andes and Himalaya are young - older mountains are more eroded.

The biblical flood or any flood in prehistory that would have been passed down through oral tradition or religious books are far, far younger than the youngest mountain ranges.

The fossils in the mountains and the mountains themselves are older than the concept of god by a few million to hundreds of millions of years. There were no humans when those mountains arose.

 

[warpus]

I like Plotinus.

That said, expertise has nothing to do with truth. I have a narrative. Someone else has a narrative. There are expert witnesses available to support either narrative, and some people may be persuaded to "believe" either narrative. That's life. I try not to lose track of the reality that narratives are not truth.

Even if we all hated Plotinus and he was a grade A butthole (which he is the exact opposite, but let's assume that he's a big jerk for the purposes of this post), he would still be the most qualified to comment on all this. The personality of the expert doesn't matter.

If the world worked the way you want it to, we wouldn't have experts at all, and every opinion would be equal. That wouldn't get us very far... There is a good reason why people specialize in disciplines and become experts in them

Would you take advice on mathematics from someone who studied mathematics for half his life, has multiple degrees in the subject, and is recognized as an expert in the field? Or someone who studied tourism in school and doesn't know what long division is

 

[timtofly]

The biblical flood or any flood in prehistory that would have been passed down through oral tradition or religious books are far, far younger than the youngest mountain ranges.

The fossils in the mountains and the mountains themselves are older than the concept of god by a few million to hundreds of millions of years. There were no humans when those mountains arose.

The point being the book of Genesis has never been proven to have been passed down orally or in written form ever. There is no proof, the Hebrews created 5 science fiction books. The only stories they ever came up with were the ones they sang about from experience.

There is no perfect planet where radioactive data can be calculated and all the variables can be accounted for. Why do humans think their planet is the exception to that rule?

If a date is given, a mountain range cannot be older than that date, but that does not rule out it can be way younger. The science is not at fault. It is interpretation of the data, and the variables of that data. As scientific research gets more precise, the assumed time frames keep getting blurred and running together.

Over 200 years ago, a human suggested we do not need ancient gods. I am not sure humans ever needed ancient gods. So what was the point? Bias against current religious trends may have led to the wrong conclusion. If humans did not need them, then there is another conclusion that they actually lived among us until an event happened that changed that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Would you take advice on mathematics from someone who studied mathematics for half his life, has multiple degrees in the subject, and is recognized as an expert in the field? Or someone who studied tourism in school and doesn't know what long division is

The guy who studied mathematics for half his life would know that mathematics is built upon assumptions that are accepted without proof, so the entire construct, like religion, is based in faith, not fact.

 

[warpus]

mathematics is built upon assumptions that are accepted without proof, so the entire construct, like religion, is based in faith, not fact.

Dear sir, you reach for such straws, it looks foolish from miles away

"We shouldn't listen to experts because everything is based on faith". Weirdest thing I've read this week

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Dear sir, you reach for such straws, it looks foolish from miles away

"We shouldn't listen to experts because everything is based on faith". Weirdest thing I've read this week

LOL...you substituted mathematics in place of religion as if they were interchangeable, and it was me that reached for a straw?

That's perhaps the stupidest thing I've read this week, and I troll the commentary on Breitbart. I expect much better here.

 

[warpus]

LOL...you substituted mathematics in place of religion as if they were interchangeable, and it was me that reached for a straw?

That's perhaps the stupidest thing I've read this week, and I troll the commentary on Breitbart. I expect much better here.

In this case we're discussing religious texts from a historical point of view, not a religious point of view. That's why you want to turn to experts in history and the study of religious texts.

I agree that if we were discussing this from a biblical point of view, a priest would be the person to turn to for expertise.

Your point is that experts shouldn't be listened to. I don't understand that point of view at all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

In this case we're discussing religious texts from a historical point of view, not a religious point of view. That's why you want to turn to experts in history and the study of religious texts.

I agree that if we were discussing this from a biblical point of view, a priest would be the person to turn to for expertise.

Your point is that experts shouldn't be listened to. I don't understand that point of view at all.

Watch a trial. Experts are brought forward to support both narratives. They don't make either narrative true, but one narrative will eventually be accepted as the position to base an immediate decision on. That's why experts should be listened to, but it is still important to keep in mind that expertise does not create truth.

As to "we were discussing religious texts from a historical point of view," who exactly are you including in this "we"?

 

[Kyriakos]

While both math and religion (and everything else, literally) is in some level linked due to being a creation of human mentality/mind, they obviously have very many (and deep, and crucial) differences. A bit like using a set of lego blocks to make the spiral of Archimedes, and using them some other time to make a smiley face Ultimately the fundamental blocks are the same, but in most lego creations one doesn't go that far to examine the blocks themselves; just focuses on the set creation.

By the above i also mean that the seriousness of a set is not just tied to the immediate properties it has (a smiley made out of lego is still important, because it uses the same important building blocks as anything else; moreover, if one at times means to examine the blocks themselves, possibly most - or even any? - set will do).

 

[warpus]

Watch a trial. Experts are brought forward to support both narratives. They don't make either narrative true, but one narrative will eventually be accepted as the position to base an immediate decision on. That's why experts should be listened to, but it is still important to keep in mind that expertise does not create truth.

Figuring out what really happened thousands of years ago can not be decided in a legal court of law. It's not a case of two narratives, one against the other, that doesn't make much sense. In a legal court of law a suspect is either guilty or not guilty. It's a binary decision, that's why there are 2 "narratives" - the prosecution's point of view, and the defense's point of view.

In the case of historical and or geological mystery none of this obviously applies. I hope you can see that and agree with me on it!

In the context of a trial the judge and the legal counsel are the legal experts. A trial is a legal construct and so we should look at it from a legal point of view and context. In the case of historical and/or geological mystery, legal experts are irrelevant and what you need are experts who can analyze the text, put it in its proper historical time period, based on the language, and whatever other hints may exist, and experts to assist with the geological aspect of it as well, and why not pull in a theologian or two to cover your bases.

To understand the spiritual implications of the religious text in question you would want a priest as an expert instead. It's simply a case of picking the right expert for the job.

As to "we were discussing religious texts from a historical point of view," who exactly are you including in this "we"?

From what I can gather we are all here discussing what might or might not have happened with regards to a great world-wide flood that covered the mountains. We are not just analyzing the religious verses and drawing spiritual meaning from it, we are actually discussing whether it's possible that the events actually transpired or not.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Figuring out what really happened thousands of years ago can not be decided in a legal court of law. It's not a case of two narratives, one against the other, that doesn't make much sense. In a legal court of law a suspect is either guilty or not guilty. It's a binary decision, that's why there are 2 "narratives" - the prosecution's point of view, and the defense's point of view.

In the case of historical and or geological mystery none of this obviously applies. I hope you can see that and agree with me on it!

Correct. It's not a case of just two narratives, it's an endless variety of narratives, all supported by their changing casts of experts. So it's a good thing that there is no important decision to be made based on the endless competition among these narratives...none of which have any hold on "the truth."