what if they found the ark?

[Chino]

If you believe in god and his word (as expressed through the bible) then you should have no problem believing and supporting the flood, ark, and Noah.

Dunno, I think there's a lot of Christians who believe in God but set aside the more outrageous parts of the Bible as apocryphal. I believe Hef is one of those.

rumborak

I understand that in the real world individuals typically do this, but you'll find very few Christian denominations that officially back this.

If the ark was found and proven, I'd think the next great scientific challenge would be to find out how god tricked us in regards to dinosaurs and carbon dating and such and unravel that mystery.

I'd also be interested in knowing where that volume of water came from and where it went... as well as why every species didn't get completely fucked up from constant inbreeding.

[Scheavo]

Well, conceivably I guess, God could have taken away that water when it wasn't needed any longer. And he could've prevented inbreeding from being a problem, he is all powerful.

But, that just begs the question, why did God need to have Noah take the animals anyways? If he was God, he could just recreate all those animals, hell, he could even recreate Noah. After all, he gave Job back his family and all his belongings.

[ohgar]

For the record, I'm not saying I would instantly convert to Christianity.  But yesh's hypothetical would definitely have me taking more seriously a story I've always thought of as parable at best and nonsense at worst.

I meant to ask, but even if they did prove (somehow) the world wide flood thing, why would you convert to christianity? Why not Islam or Judaism?

I would convert to the Sumerian religion, as they were the first culture in that area to propose a flood myth (as well as most of the myths in the Bible).

[bosk1]

I would convert to the Sumerian religion, as they were the first culture in that area to propose a flood myth (as well as most of the myths in the Bible).

Common logical fallacy.  The fact that the oldest written record of a flood story that we currently know about belongs to them is not the equivalent of them being the first to propose a flood story.

[rumborak]

It is however the most likely.

[eric42434224]

I dont think the "logical fallacy card" should be played in response to someone who is obviously joking.  Just sayin'.

[ohgar]

I would convert to the Sumerian religion, as they were the first culture in that area to propose a flood myth (as well as most of the myths in the Bible).

Common logical fallacy.  The fact that the oldest written record of a flood story that we currently know about belongs to them is not the equivalent of them being the first to propose a flood story.

No, but they certainly proposed it before the Hebrews did, considering the Hebrews came into existence long after Sumerian civilization had fallen... and Babylonian flood myths also predate the Hebrew people. It's conceivable that the Hebrews drew directly from an older "authentic" source lost to history, and that their version of the story is the "correct" one; however, while we're being logical and scholarly here, there is an equal probability of any other Mediterranean culture's flood story being true-- and an exponentially greater probability that none of them are.

[bosk1]

I would convert to the Sumerian religion, as they were the first culture in that area to propose a flood myth (as well as most of the myths in the Bible).

Common logical fallacy.  The fact that the oldest written record of a flood story that we currently know about belongs to them is not the equivalent of them being the first to propose a flood story.

No, but they certainly proposed it before the Hebrews did, considering the Hebrews came into existence long after Sumerian civilization had fallen... and Babylonian flood myths also predate the Hebrew people.

Of course.  But that does not prove that the Sumerian account is older than the Hewbrew account.  For example:  Assume the flood occurs in year X.  The account of what happened is passed down through the ages by the descendants of the survivors.  In one branch, it is eventually treated as somewhat of a myth and is altered.  An altered version evetually gets written down by the Sumerians.  In another branch, it is decided that this story is important enough that it should be preserved literally without alteration.  That unaltered version gets passed down through the ages and eventually gets written down much later than the Sumerian version by a member of the then-existing Hewbrew nation (well, I guess they weren't technically a "nation" either at that point in time, but you get the idea). 

Or, alternatively, let's say this pre-Sumerian branch forgot the story altogether since no one really bothered to write this stuff down back then anyway.  But, as in the hypothetical scenario above, the pre-Hebrew branch again decided it was important enough to keep intact.  Later on, some pre-Sumerians or actual Sumerians run into some pre-Hebrews, hear the story, and adopt the parts of it that seem to fit their culture.  Again, they write it down first, before the Hewbrews really exist as a people and start writing down their own stuff.

In either scenario, the fact that the Sumerians wrote first, or even that they existed earlier as a recognizable people, isn't relevant to whether their version of the story is really the earliest or the most accurate.  First one to go to press isn't necessarily the one with the most accurate story, or even the first one to have the story, for that matter.

[ohgar]

I anticipated your argument and edited my post while you were responding. See the edited version.

[bosk1]

I anticipated your argument and edited my post while you were responding. See the edited version.

Gotcha.  Well put.  But I still don't think that changes anything in my argument.  Again, first one to go to press isn't necessarily the one with the most accurate story, or even the first one to have the story, for that matter.  We simply don't know enough to say definitively who had the story first.  (But in terms of which is true, if any, I disagree with your assessmen of the odds.  Given that the flood account is in a collection of writings where the [mostly] Hewbrew writers got a LOT of historically-verifiable stuff right, including stuff that was passed down orally for awhile before being committed to writing, I would argue that they get the nod)

[eric42434224]

It is a logical fallacy to think any worldwide flood story is true or accurate, regardless of when it was written, or by whom.

[ohgar]

There is no part of the Torah that is historically verifiable, and while it was probably written down at one point from the oral tradition, it was also revised multiple times, reaching its current form while the Hebrews were occupied by the Persians--and then only in terms of consonants. The vowels were not definitively agreed upon until after the destruction of the Second Temple.

[eric42434224]

I anticipated your argument and edited my post while you were responding. See the edited version.

Gotcha.  Well put.  But I still don't think that changes anything in my argument.  Again, first one to go to press isn't necessarily the one with the most accurate story, or even the first one to have the story, for that matter.  We simply don't know enough to say definitively who had the story first.  (But in terms of which is true, if any, I disagree with your assessmen of the odds.  Given that the flood account is in a collection of writings where the [mostly] Hewbrew writers got a LOT of historically-verifiable stuff right, including stuff that was passed down orally for awhile before being committed to writing, I would argue that they get the nod)

Wait....did you just shoot down the Sumerian version because of a logical fallacy, and then give the *nod* to the Hebrew version on the basis of practically the same logical fallacy?

Just because there are more hebrew writings, and just because they might have some incidental pieces that can be verified, does not mean it is the most accurate.

Regardless, I reiterate my above post.  It is not logical to say one version of an event that did not happen, is the most accurate.  They are equally accurate as the Flood did not happen.   

[bosk1]

There is no part of the Torah that is historically verifiable, and while it was probably written down at one point from the oral tradition, it was also revised multiple times, reaching its current form while the Hebrews were occupied by the Persians--and then only in terms of consonants. The vowels were not definitively agreed upon until after the destruction of the Second Temple.

Suffice it to say, I don't think that's what current scholarship establishes.  I'll just leave it at that.

Wait....did you just shoot down the Sumerian version because of a logical fallacy, and then give the *nod* to the Hebrew version on the basis of practically the same logical fallacy?

No.

[ohgar]

There is no part of the Torah that is historically verifiable, and while it was probably written down at one point from the oral tradition, it was also revised multiple times, reaching its current form while the Hebrews were occupied by the Persians--and then only in terms of consonants. The vowels were not definitively agreed upon until after the destruction of the Second Temple.

Suffice it to say, I don't think that's what current scholarship establishes.  I'll just leave it at that.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain numerous fragments of the Torah marked with vowels, some of which resemble the Masoretic Text, others of which resemble the Greek Pentateuch, and still others of which resemble neither. Different branches of Christianity still can't agree with each other on whether to translate from the Greek or the Masoretic Hebrew, and justifiably so, given current archeological evidence. It's worth noting that the definitive Masoretic Text was arrived at the same way all Jewish Biblical scholarship was, by fierce and spirited debate among the most learned scholars of the time, who did not all agree with each other.

[theseoafs]

I feel it's rather silly to argue about which version of the flood myth is most trustworthy, since, scientifically speaking, they're all false -- there is no evidence that a great flood ever happened.

[ohgar]

No one is arguing about which one is more trustworthy. Bosk is suggesting that the Sumerian version may not be the oldest version of the flood myth, and introducing the possibility that the Hebrews retained the original version. I am countering that there is an equal possibility that any flood myth was the original version, and an exponentially greater possibility that they are all derivatives of a lost common ancestor dating to pre-writing times. Any talk of "truth" on my part was merely suspending disbelief, as the OP instructed us to do by even bringing up this ridiculous topic.

[eric42434224]

There is no part of the Torah that is historically verifiable, and while it was probably written down at one point from the oral tradition, it was also revised multiple times, reaching its current form while the Hebrews were occupied by the Persians--and then only in terms of consonants. The vowels were not definitively agreed upon until after the destruction of the Second Temple.

Suffice it to say, I don't think that's what current scholarship establishes.  I'll just leave it at that.

Wait....did you just shoot down the Sumerian version because of a logical fallacy, and then give the *nod* to the Hebrew version on the basis of practically the same logical fallacy?

No.

Yes you did.  As an example, you used the fact that there are more written hebrew accounts of the flood than Sumerian accounts as support for your assertion.  That is the same logical fallacy.  Just because there are more Hebrew accounts proves only one thing...that we have found more Hebrew accounts....nothing else.

Regardless, I reiterate my above post.  It is not logical to say one version of an event that did not happen, is the most accurate.  They are equally accurate as the Flood did not happen.   

[bosk1]

Yes you did.  As an example, you used the fact that there are more written hebrew accounts of the flood than Sumerian accounts as support for your assertion.  That is the same logical fallacy. 

Incorrect.

The first argument was, essentially, "First to have written it means first to have had it."  The way it was originally worded was as an absolute.  However, I showed that it is NOT an absolute, which means that, by definition, that argument contained a fallacy. 

The second argument (mine) is, essentially, "When a text or collection of texts demonstrates verifiable historical reliability in some areas, that tends to suggest credibility in areas that cannot be independently verified."  That is not the same argument.  And it contains no fallacy.  In fact, it is an axiom that is generally applied by historians, anthropologists, and experts in lots of other fields as well.  Where you disagree with me is in how I am applying that axiom to the evidence to then derive my conclusion that I believe the Hebrew account is more likely the more accurate.  That's a disagreement over the sufficiency of the evidence, not a logical fallacy.


But that being said, as Ohgar already said:

No one is arguing about which one is more trustworthy. Bosk is suggesting that the Sumerian version may not be the oldest version of the flood myth, and introducing the possibility that the Hebrews retained the original version.

I mention my belief about which one is more accurate just as an aside.  But that isn't really what we were arguing.

[eric42434224]

but if that were the case, i

[bosk1]

***DIVERSION FROM PRESENT ARGUMENT--PLEASE READ***

As an aside, @ Thesoafs, Ohgar, Eric, and others who may believe the topic is silly, ridiculous, etc.:  If that's how you feel about the topic, that's fine.  What isn't fine is doing a flyby in a topic and essentially saying, "Rather than participate constructively in this conversation, I'm just dropping in to say that this whole topic is dumb."  And as is clarified in the rules you all were required to read and agree to before being granted access to P/R, that is not okay and will get your access revoked if it continues.  We are no longer going to tolerate that kind of thing in this section of the board.  If you don't have anything constructive to add in a topic, or you believe the topic is somehow beneath you, then simply resist the urge to post.  That doesn't mean you don't have a right to disagree with one side or the other.  But debate the topic civilly, or not at all, please.  Thanks.

[bosk1]

Since you brought it up, which version of the Flood Myth do historians and anthropologists, using the axioms you share, agree is the most accurate?  Historically verifiable points in texts are a factor...but so is the age of the text.  Im sure they both play parts.

Depends on the historian, anthopologist, scientist, etc.  Opinions vary.  But to be honest, since this is the answer I believe you are looking for, I believe far more believe that none of the flood accounts in question are literally accurate, and that a minority believe the Genesis account is an accurate account of a worldwide flood.

Historically verifiable points in texts are a factor...but so is the age of the text.  Im sure they both play parts.

Somewhat, yes.  But it depends.  I realize I am making your argument for you (which I don't mind), but I think the distance in time of the text from the event it portrays is more often a bigger factor than the age of the text alone.  All things being equal, an older, eyewitness account of something will usually be given more weight than a newer account that is several generations removed from anyone who lived through whatever the event.

[Adami]

Rather than participate constructively in this conversation, I'm just dropping in to say that this whole topic is fascinating and will continue to read about it.





Really though, if you add in the idea of a god being involved, then really anything goes. However without the presence of a god or something similar like Q, then I can't really see how any flood myth is more trust worthy than any other. The simple law of conservation pretty much rules a world wide flood out.

[eric42434224]

Bosk:  I did no such thing, and my posts were not in violation of any of the rules.  Do not put words in my mouth, or attempt to say what my motives were, and then publically warn me.

EDIT:  and why the f*ck are you responding to my posts if they are violating rules?  WTF?

[bosk1]

Think of it as a general reminder to keep on task rather than an official warning.  If I were taking official action, you would know.  I am reminding people to keep on target and drop the personal attacks.  If you feel I misunderstood you and that you were unfairly lumped in with others, I apologize.  The point is, people need to stop doing that, and that is not debatable.

[theseoafs]

***DIVERSION FROM PRESENT ARGUMENT--PLEASE READ***

As an aside, @ Thesoafs, Ohgar, Eric, and others who may believe the topic is silly, ridiculous, etc.:  If that's how you feel about the topic, that's fine.  What isn't fine is doing a flyby in a topic and essentially saying, "Rather than participate constructively in this conversation, I'm just dropping in to say that this whole topic is dumb."  And as is clarified in the rules you all were required to read and agree to before being granted access to P/R, that is not okay and will get your access revoked if it continues.  We are no longer going to tolerate that kind of thing in this section of the board.  If you don't have anything constructive to add in a topic, or you believe the topic is somehow beneath you, then simply resist the urge to post.  That doesn't mean you don't have a right to disagree with one side or the other.  But debate the topic civilly, or not at all, please.  Thanks.

For the record, I don't necessarily have a qualm with the topic.  Although I don't think it's plausible that we might ever find the Ark, the idea can lead to some pretty interesting discussion (like the aside on the completeness of scripture I participated in).

The discussion I objected to was the one I perceived as starting up between you and ohgar; it didn't strike me as productive to try to figure out how old the flood myth might be, or why that information might possibly be useful in a discussion of truth.  It seems I misunderstood the point of that aside, though, since both of you corrected me, so you can consider my comment retracted.

EDIT:  Basically, I posted this because I felt "walk in, say 'this is stupid', walk out" wasn't an accurate characterization of what I've done here.  I'm just protecting my balls.

[Jaffa]

Really though, if you add in the idea of a god being involved, then really anything goes.

I just wanted to emphasize this. 

If you accept the laws of physics (as we understand them) as absolute, then you can rule out the possibility of God simply by saying that something cannot be created from nothing.  Therefore, in order to even consider the possibility of God, you must first accept that the laws of physics might not be absolute.  And if you can accept that the laws of physics might (even hypothetically) not be absolute, then you cannot use the laws of physics to disprove God or any religious story.  Because if there is a God, and He is all-powerful, then we really have no idea what He can or cannot do - in fact, I think the idea that there are things which an all-powerful being cannot do seems illogical in and of itself. 

As it applies to the flood myth, people can say that a worldwide flood is impossible.  But, bottom line: an all-powerful being could create an infinite amount of water to flood the world with and then spontaneously erase that infinite amount of water from existence on a whim.  He could then erase all evidence of that flood, just because He felt like it. 

The only way you can disprove the flood myth using the laws of physics is if your basic assumption is that there is no God, or that God cannot break the laws of physics.  And if you're making either of those as a basic assumption, then, well, why are you participating in the debate?

Sorry for the tangent.  I don't mean to be obnoxious, it's just that this thread has touched on a pet peeve of mine. 

[bosk1]

As it applies to the flood myth, people can say that a worldwide flood is impossible.  But, bottom line: an all-powerful being could create an infinite amount of water to flood the world with and then spontaneously erase that infinite amount of water from existence on a whim.  He could then erase all evidence of that flood, just because He felt like it. 

I'm trying not to steer this thread too far off course, but to briefly reply:  This is correct.  HOWEVER, I do not believe God erased the evidence.  I simply believe the majority of people (including the majority of the scientific community) do not interpret the evidence correctly. 

[Jaffa]

Oh, yeah, that's fine.  I'm not trying to speak to any correct way of interpreting the flood myth, or anything else in religion for that matter.  Just saying that we can't really use science to speak to what God might or might not be capable of. 

[theseoafs]

If you accept the laws of physics (as we understand them) as absolute, then you can rule out the possibility of God simply by saying that something cannot be created from nothing. 

Actually, this isn't a principle of physics.  As we all know, before the universe came into existence, there was no time and no space; the universe literally has to have come from nothing, so anyone who argues that God can't exist because something can't come from nothing is misguided.

The only way you can disprove the flood myth using the laws of physics is if your basic assumption is that there is no God, or that God cannot break the laws of physics. 

Well, the Bible doesn't really say that God erased all evidence of the flood, did he?  You'd have to assume that's what God did in order to continue to believe the flood actually happened, which doesn't seem prudent to me.

The point is that there is no scientific reason to believe the flood ever happened.  We can't prove the flood didn't happen (again, impossible to prove a negative), but there are some great big leaps of faith required to believe that it did.  What that means for the validity of Judaism/Christianity is up to you.

[Jaffa]

Actually, this isn't a principle of physics.  As we all know, before the universe came into existence, there was no time and no space; the universe literally has to have come from nothing, so anyone who argues that God can't exist because something can't come from nothing is misguided.

This is true, and I apologize for a poor example on my part.  But I do maintain that while "matter cannot be created or destroyed" may have exceptions in special relativity and quantum mechanics, it is still a phrase that is taught in high school physics classes, so the general principle has not been thrown out. 

At any rate, I think you understand my point and just take issue with my choice of example, so I apologize for that.

Well, the Bible doesn't really say that God erased all evidence of the flood, did he?  You'd have to assume that's what God did in order to continue to believe the flood actually happened, which doesn't seem prudent to me.

I don't disagree.  Again, it's really not my goal to argue for the validity of the flood myth.  My point is simply that it's somewhat silly to scientifically argue against the validity of the flood myth when the implication of the myth is that there's an all-powerful God who transcends science. 

We can't prove the flood didn't happen (again, impossible to prove a negative)

I know.  What bugs me is that some people (though not necessarily in this thread) try to scientifically prove that the flood didn't happen, or (and this one does happen in this thread) take it as a given that the flood didn't happen because science says it didn't happen. 

It just seems to me that in order to participate in a dicussion like this, one should have an open mind, which one clearly does not have if one's basic assumptions contradict the point of the discussion. 

[eric42434224]

What is the point of having a discussion about anything that has subject matter related to god then, if you always end up coming back to the fact that no rules have to apply?  The discussion basically ends before it starts because every scenario, however unlikely, or how directly against scientific evidence, is always perfectly possible.

One can argue that god obliterated the world, and everyone on it, yesterday.  By your position, even though there is absolutely zero scientific evidence to support it, if you believe in god, then god destroying everything yesterday, and just replacing us all today with no memory of the destruction is just as reasonable an explanation?  Am I understanding you correctly?

[Jaffa]

No, but that's because I'm not expressing myself clearly, and I apologize.  However, I feel like this is dragging things a bit more off-topic than I ever meant for it to, so I'm just going to shut up and let the discussion continue in whatever direction it wants to. 

[Scheavo]

As it applies to the flood myth, people can say that a worldwide flood is impossible.  But, bottom line: an all-powerful being could create an infinite amount of water to flood the world with and then spontaneously erase that infinite amount of water from existence on a whim.  He could then erase all evidence of that flood, just because He felt like it. 

I'm trying not to steer this thread too far off course, but to briefly reply:  This is correct.  HOWEVER, I do not believe God erased the evidence.  I simply believe the majority of people (including the majority of the scientific community) do not interpret the evidence correctly.

And what evidence would that be? In regards to geology and genetics?

[Orthogonal]

The wide spread "myth" of a flood throughout all the major civilizations certainly points to some event that occurred in ancient history that is a shared memory between the disparate civilizations. This is not the only archetype found on a global scale. However, there is not much hard evidence to support a true global flood as depicted in the bible. A more reasonable answer would be something like transient sea level rising event which would likely have effected a significant portion of the human population, but not necessarily a global flood. Or perhaps something like a major Tsunami flooding the coasts for days and hitting multiple continents (similar to what occurred in 2004).