Noah's Flood: the Beginning and the End

How words tell the truth and can yet deceive with age

Published on August 9, 2008 By Leauki In Religion

This article is meant to give a quick idea of the events of Noah's flood and what the story is really about. A more full-featured essay will follow, but not very soon, as I am still working on some details.

Genesis 7:6 The Beginning of the Flood

ונח בן־שש מאות
שנה והמבול היה
מים על־הארץ

VeNoach ben-shesh meot
shana vehaMavol haya
mayim 3al-haAretz

Two words in this are difficult, or at least go against the traditional English reading of the Bible.

The first is the word "shana", which in modern Hebrew (and in the last 3000 years or so) means "year". But that's not what the root of the word means.

Thinking about the word and the ridiculous age of Biblical characters it occured to me that it cannot mean "year".

So I researched a bit and read the dictionary and followed Hebrew grammar and its rules and found the following interesting details:

1. The word "shana" is the absolute form of the word "shanat", the root is Shin Nun Tav.

Both Hebrew and Arabic have a special form of the letter Hei to differentiate a Hei standing in for a Tav in the root of the word. In Hebrew a dot in the middle of the He shows that it stands for a consonant, not a vowel before a missing Tav. But that dot was only introduced in the middle ages. In Arabic the letter Hei with a certain punctuation stands for a missing Tav (and is even called a type of Tav).

So I looked up the word "year" in Arabic and found several words, including one written Sin Nun He. "Sin" is a variant of "Shin" used when the letter is pronounced /s/ rather than /sh/ (like in "Israel" or "Sarah"). And the Hei is indeed a missing Tav. So the root is likely Shin Nun Tav.

2. The verb based on the root Shin Nun Tav is "lishnot" and means "to change".

3. "shana" is hence, literally, a "change".

4. Genesis and Exodus use the Babylonian calendar.

This is important because the Hebrew calendar is lunisolar, based on years. The calendar Genesis and Exodus use is based on months. While a "change" in a calendar based on years is clearly a "year", an "alteration" in a calendar based on months is equally clearly a month.

And it turns out if the numbers given in Genesis are read as months rather than years, most ages mentioned seem very normal. And Noah was 600 months, that is 50 years old when he built the ark.

The second difficult word is "haAretz".

It's not actually difficult but a change in the English language (and most others) has made it so. The King James Bible translates "haAretz" variously as "the earth" or "the land". A Latin translation translated "haAretz" as "terra". "Terra" means in Latin exactly what "eretz" means in Hebrew. It also translates as "earth" another Hebrew word, which means something slightly different: "adama".

What is "haAretz" (and "eretz", the same word without the definite article)? This seems to be very difficult for some to understand.

During the age of exploration unknown land was marked as "terra incognita". "Terra incognita" means "unknown land". The Germanic word "earth" (or "Erde" in German) meant the same. It's the thing at our feet, the opposite of the heavens.

"Adama" is the sandy material that the surface is mostly made of. Man was made out of it, hence man was called "Adam". Man contains blood, and blood is "dam". The Bible loves a good word game.

About 500 years ago the word "earth" was more and more used to mean "earth, the planet" rather than "earth, the surface". And 100 years ago science fiction writers started using Latin "terra" to mean our planet (the actual Latin word for planet earth is "tellus").

In English the meaning of the word "earth" has changed almost completely. British English still uses "earth" to refer to the surface (which Americans call "ground"). But in German the cognate "Erde" still means "earth, the surface" in normal conversation, and the south-African animal "Aardvark" ("earth piglet") was named for digging in the surface rather than for being peculiar to planet earth.

Since the meaning of the English word "earth" has changed since the Bible was first translated into Germanic languages, and since the meaning of the Latin word "terra" has likewise changed since then, translating "haAretz" as "the earth" is now nearly a mistake. (It is not really a mistake because "earth" still has the meaning "land" or "earth, the surface", but it's widely used to mean "earth, the planet".)

But if one reads "the earth" as "the planet earth" rather than "the land", the meaning of the Hebrew text is no longer reflected in the translation.

In ancient times people also didn't know that the earth (the planet) was round. They thought of "the earth" as being something flat to live on, under the heavens, surrounded by waters or more land. The image of a ball completely covered with water is a relatively recent invention, it is not what the authors and readers of the Bible then had in mind. They saw a flooded land, surrounded by mountains that defined the limits of the land. (A land is usually defined by mountains and rivers at its borders.)

With this being cleared up, we can now have a look at the text again:

veNoach ben-shesh meot
shana vehaMavol haya
mayim 3al-haAretz

Translation (literal):

"And Noah (is) son-six hundreds change and the flood was water on the land."

Hebrew doesn't have forms of "to be" for the present tense (they are implied). "Son [some number] [some unit]" is the normal way to say an age of a person in Hebrew.

Genesis 8:4 The End of the Flood

ותנח התבה בחדש
השביעי בשבעה־עשר
יום לחדש על הרי
אררט

VaTnach haTiva baHodesh
haShevi3i baShev3a-eser
yom laHodesh 3al hari
urartu.

The first word is really difficult and I didn't figure it out for a while. It's spelt Vav Tav Nun Het. A Vav at the beginning of a word usually means "and". And the King James Bible indeed translates "And the ark rested in the seventh month [...]". However, that translation doesn't explain the Tav.

Tav Nun Het is no word. So what does the Tav mean?

I wondered for a while and then remembered that a Vav at the beginning of a verb can also, mostly in Biblical Hebrew, change past tense to future tense and future tense to past tense. (What really happens is that in Hebrew an "and" before a verb negates the tense of the word and it presumably makes sense in Hebrew that it does so.)

There should be a word for "rest" or "land" (as in "the ark rested" or "landed") in the sentence. There is no such word after haTiva ("the ark") and Hebrew is gerally Verb-Subject-Object (at least Biblical Hebrew is).

So I looked up possible verbs and found "lehanachit" ("to land", "to bring about"). I looked up the root in "501 Hebrew Verbs" and found that Nun Het Tav is the word I am looking for.

But Tav Nun Het is not Nun Het Tav. So what was I missing?

501 Hebrew Verbs also mentions that there is a colloqial form of Nun Het Tav which skips the Tav. Hence "nach" (Nun Het) alone is a usable verb for our sentence and means "to land".

In this case the Tav is simply a part of the conjugation and makes the word "nach" future tense (third person singular masculine). And the Vav makes it past tense.

VaTnach haTiva baHodesh
haShevi3i baShev3a-eser
yom laHodesh 3al hari
urartu.

Translation:

"Landed the ark in the month the seventh at the seven-ten day in the month on the hills of Urartu."

Biblical Hebrew is written without vowels. Later Biblical Hebrew is written with long vowels where the letters Vav and Yud (/v/ and /y/) are also used to represent long vowels (/u/ and /o/, /i/ and /e/ respectively). But Genesis doesn't use Vav and Yud that way. (Arabic and Aramaic also use Aleph (glottal stop) for a long vowel (/a/), but Hebrew doesn't.)

I put in the vowels according to an easy algorithm:

1. If I knew the word, I'd simply use the correct vowels.

2. If I didn't know the word, I'd guess the vowels.

The first method worked for "tiva" ("ark") and "hodesh" ("month"). It also worked for "urartu".

Urartu was a kingdom existing in today's north-eastern Iraq (in the Kurdistan autonomous region) just behind Arbil (as seen from the south-west). Today's Mount Ararat is at the northern tip of the region. In 1200 BCE the kingdom was possibly well-known, but at Noah's time it didn't exist.

Hebrew "har" is not a mountain, it's a hill. And Noah did not land on the top of the mountains or a mountain but simply "on the hills". Northeastern Iraq is a mountainous region, but the relative height of the hills of Urartu wouldn't be that impressive. "Urartu", written without vowels, can be read as "Ararat". The two are the same word. (The word begins with an Aleph, a silent glottal stop: 'RRT. Fill in /u/ /a/ /-/ /u/ and you get "Urartu", fill in /a/ /a/ /a/ /-/ and you get "Ararat".)

So here we go. The Bible tells the story of a man and his family and animals living in a valley region in northern Mesopotamia, where floods happen a lot, who when he was 50 years old built a boat to rescue his family and animals when the land was flooded. And he landed on the hills next to the flooded valley land.

That is, literally and word for word, what the Bible tells us.

And that is exactly what I believe to be totally true.

To read "change" as "year" or "earth, the surface" as "earth, the planet" is an assumption we cannot safely make, a non-literal interpretation of the original text. Both came into use a long time after the events and are based on the changed meanings of words. For the English word "earth" we can easily see how and when the meaning of the word changed, but with Hebrew "shana" it was a bit more difficult.

Updates:

There are two roots Shin Nun Tav. One was Tav Nun Tav originally. Their meanings are closely related: "to repeat" (Tav Nun Tav) and "to change" (Shin Nun Tav).

The Aramaic survivor of the Tav Nun Tav root, "tana" (Tav Nun Aleph, the Aleph standing for the vowel /a/) means "teach".

The Arabic version of "shana" (سنة) shows the original Hei-for-Tav spelling of the word. (A Hei with two dots refers to a missing Tav that reappears in construct forms.)

Both Aramaic and Arabic spell "two" ("Shnaim") with a Tav rather than a Shin suggesting that the word for "two" derives from the Tav Nun Tav root.

Planned next:

The long version of the reading of Noah's story with comparisons with Sumerian legend. (Was Noah a Sumerian king?)

The story of Abraham and how it fits into the history of Aram and Canaan and why Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Hebrew.

The story of Adam and Eve and whether to read it literally or not. (Is a snake a snake or is it symbolic for the devil? What else is symbolic?)

The story of Ishmael and his descendants after being sent into "midbar" (the "wilderness") as per Arab legend and Quran.

The relationship between Sumar and Semitic tribes and Iranians and Kurds and Semitic tribes and how it affected Judaism and Zoroastrianism. (Did G-d sent prophets to the Israelites and the Iranians?)

I can assure you that you will be surprised!

Comments (Page 3)

Sodaiho

on Aug 13, 2008

Where in the world is everyone today? Hardly a comment on any of our blogs!

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Aug 13, 2008

Why didn't G-d simply shorten the lives of the sinners instead of those that came after the flood?

everybody were sinners after the flood...so not sure your point Leauki. Can you imagine living 930 years now with this much sin in the world? Look at Hitler...can you imagine all the evil he could have imagined if he lived longer than what is considered normal today? He did enough evil in his short life, can't imagine if he had hundreds left to do his damage.

The shorter lifespan was just another act of mercy on God's part as a result of our sin.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 13, 2008

Scripture said that Adam lived 930 years and had many sons and daughters to whom he taught the law of God.

Well, we know what G-d taught Adam and how well he listened. What exactly might he have been teaching his sons and daughters?

Adam was instructed immediately by God, so this might be called the first stage of religion. Adam handed on to his children the truth about God and the duty of worshipping Him. The Scriptures tell that Abel offered sacrifice. The traditions were offered by Adam's posterity, but these seem to have faded over time. Still, conscience dictated what was naturally right and this period is called Natural Law. God, however, gave revelations to various Patriarchs over and above the Natural Law. Noah belonged to the period of Patriarchial religion.

After the re-multiplication of the human race from Noah, mankind again began to forget God and God gave Moses a clearer exposition of religious duties to be put into writing. This is known as the stage of written law or that of the Old Covenant Mosaic, or Hebraic Religion.

Finally, God sent His own Son to give the more perfect law...the Christian New Covenant law which the Catholic Church teaches today in its fullness and will teach until the end of time.

Why didn't G-d simply shorten the lives of the sinners instead of those that came after the flood?

Adam was initially endowed with the gift of immortality. After his fall into sin, God punished him and all his posterity with death. God sent the Flood as a just punishment for sin and as a lesson for future generations.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 13, 2008

Leauki posts:

And why, oh why, did G-d not simply tell us that it was a global flood and wrote instead that it was a local flood? Did he rely on someone translating haAretz into another language where the meaning of the word would change from "land" to "planet" several hundred years later? What if the word "earth" hadn't changed its meaning? Does Biblical truth really depend on changes in the Germanic languages? What if the word "earth" in 200 years means "cave"? Would that change Biblical truth again?

I understand the meaning of eretz is "earth" and that is how it is translated in the Douay Rheims version. If that word earth is put together with other subsidiary details, then it seems most reasonable and credible that it was a global flood.

What I accept in the most literal sense is that there was indeed a real historical Flood in 2400BC, the Ark was a fact, all mankind was drowned except Noah and those with him on the Ark.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 13, 2008

Biblical truth will never change. It's for us to figure out what it means.

Genesis records the time God chose to unfold His Creathion. Exodus 20:11 is quite specific as well. From these accounts, God gives us general information that He created, space, matter and time from nothing and laws of nature were placed into operation by which these all interact. While Scripture doesn't formally reveal how, we learn in time, through scientific progress, that God impressed complex information onto cells which can reproduce and pass on that information to the next generation. God left this knowledge to be sought and discovered by human endeavor.

Some scientists think that when creating the universe, God used processes different from those used to maintain the world today and that before the Flood the whole earth was most likely a different environment with a temperate climate. Uniform temperatures meant there were no strong winds, or storms enabling the now extinct flying creaures to fly without crashing. Plants and animals were giant sized and even men were of large stature. Fossils worldwide show that before the Flood, the size of mammals was 30-40% greater than today. After the Flood, Pleistocene Age, there was a declining size of animals. The fossils can't reveal whether there was a declining in lifespans of animals, but Genesis records a decline in man's lifespan.

They interpret Genesis 1:7 as being a vapor canopy above the stratoshpere causing a greenhouse effect. This transparent canopy would have held a sufficient amount of water to produce rain for 40 days and nights.

Creation scientists postulate the pre-Flood was one system of equilibrium and the Flood caused a new sytem of equilibrium. The Patriarchial longevity curve suggests new factors were present after the Flood. They theorize that the pre-Flood atmospheric pressure would have been about double that of today with about double today's oxygen pressure and so allow giant forms of life to exist. Higher oxygen pressure would have also aided longevity according to 1981 studies of hyperbaric treatment using 2.5 atmospheres of pure oxygen. Following that, lab studies of carbon dioxide determined produced beneficial effects on the blood in brain cells of the hypothalamus gland which effects aging for the neuro-endoctrine system.

The scientists proposed that the pre-Flood atmosphere was very much richer in carbon dioxide than that after the Flood citing that cold oceans soak up much more co2 from the atmosphere than warm oceans. Today's oceans average 38 degrees, pre-Flood would have been 60. Putting it all together, warmer oceans meant pre-Flood atmosphere was richer in CO2 resulting in dilation of blood vessels, increasing oxygen flow and therefore rendering the hypothoalmus gland less active retarding the aging process.

One of the scientist, Don Patten went on and said that a century ago, CO2 comprised 290 ppmillion of the atmosphere and since then, the ratio has been raised to 330. He thinks this increase in atmospheric CO2 has some relation to our recent generations' increase in height and or lifespan as well.

Consider Noah's getting drunk in Genesis 9: 18-29.

The higher atmospheric pressure provides a clue as to why Noah became drunk after he re-established his family after the Flood waters subsided. With the vapor canopy gone, the rate of formation of the alcohol in the wine would have speeded up and Noah would not have anticipated there being more alcohol in the wine.

Leauki

on Aug 14, 2008

And you just ignore the fact that "earth" meant "earth, the surface" and not "earth, the planet" when that translation was written?

Biblical truth will never change.

Unless of course somebody translates the truth into English and the meaning of the English words change afterwards. In that case Biblical truth changes.

That's how the flood became global.

lulapilgrim

on Aug 14, 2008

KFC POSTS:

Douay Rheims Bible
7:6 And he was six hundred years old, when the waters of the flood overflowed the earth.

Lula posts:

Leauki posts:

And you just ignore the fact that "earth" meant "earth, the surface" and not "earth, the planet" when that translation was written?

Rather than ignoring any facts, I've taken them into account in coming to my understanding that the Flood was a catacsymic global event.

You seem to have though. Scripture has to be understood not word by word, or line by line, but as a whole story in its whole context.

That's why KFC's question should be given careful consideration. It's important to put the word "earth" together with the other subsidiary details given in the text of the Flood event.

Why did it take Noah over a year to get out of the boat if it were only a little local flood? Now is that a real year or a month?

There is overwhelming field evidence of a global flood in the fossils that have been found. The FLood occurred in 2400BC and it was after that the legends of it appeared amongst various cultures all over the world, not just in the Mesopotamia region.

Leauki

on Aug 14, 2008

Rather than ignoring any facts, I've taken them into account in coming to my understanding that the Flood was a cataclysmic global event.

So why then did you (and KFC) keep referring to the word "earth" as if it made it clear that the entire planet was meant?

Your story now doesn't match your previous story.

How do you explain that the Latin translation translates "eretz" as "terra" ("land") rather than "tellus" ("planet earth")?

You seem to have though. Scripture has to be understood not word by word, or line by line, but as a whole story in its whole context.

Really? That sounds odd coming from the literalist camp.

Did you know that Islam believes that the flood was local? They read the same text and arrived at the conclusion that since the Tora said it was local, it was local. How do you explain that Arabic- and Aramaic-speakers understood the story to be about a local flood?

There is overwhelming field evidence of a global flood in the fossils that have been found.

Actually no, the fossils just show that the world and its life is a lot older even than the Noah legend. There is no field evidence for a global flood.

That's why KFC's question should be given careful consideration. It's important to put the word "earth" together with the other subsidiary details given in the text of the Flood event.

It is. But it is, as I said, the word "land" that has to be put together with the other details.

If you are using the translation "earth", a word that has changed its meaning in the last 500 years, you are confusing the issue.

Try using the word "land" and see if YOUR reading can still work. And if you find that your reading relies on a change of meaning in the English language, consider whether the truth really lies in modern English meanings of words or in the Hebrew text.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Aug 14, 2008

That's why KFC's question should be given careful consideration. It's important to put the word "earth" together with the other subsidiary details given in the text of the Flood event.

exactly, I mean one thing not brought up so far is the gigantic size of this Ark. It was three hundred cubits long, fifty broad, and thirty high; that is, 450 feet long, 75 feet broad and 45 feet high, with three stories. Com'on for a local flood?

And he was to bring into this huge boat "every living thing." EVERY? Why.... if it were only local? How about the fact it says in scripture that God would "bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy ALL flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven." ALL flesh?

Interestingly Peter Jansen in 1604 built a ship on precisely the same proportions (not same figures) which was found to hold one-third more lading than any other vessel of the same tonnage.

"By faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the WORLD, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." Hebrews 11:7.

Also it says: "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl and of cattle and of beast, and of every creeping thing that ceepeth upon the earth, and every man; all in whose nostrils was the breath of life of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle and the creeping things and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah only remained alive and they that were with him in the ark."

All Flesh? Fowl? Why? The birds should have been able to fly great distances correct? Or at least sit it out in a high tree? Unless there were no trees because the flood covered them even on the tallest mountains.

Remember it says it covered every hill and mountain. Now how logical could it be to say this was a local flood knowing this? I mean it would slide down the hill to the other side correct? So how could the hills/mountains be covered unless it were universal?

According to, the born Jewish, Alfred Edershem (1825-1889) who was a leading authority of his time regarding the doctrines and practices of Judaism, there is a matter connected with the flood that is striking as to claim our special attention. He said:

"It is that the remembrance of the flood has been preserved in the traditions of so many nations, so widely separated and so independent of each other, that is is impossible to doubt that they have all been derived from one and the same original source. As might be expected, they contain many legendary details, and they generally fix the locality of the flood in their own lands; but these very particulars mark them as corruptions of the real history recorded in the Bible, and carried by the different nations into the various countries where they settled. Mr. Perowne has grouped these traditions into those of Western Asia, including the Chaldean, the Phoenician, that of the so-called "sibylline Oracles," the Phrygian, the Syrian, and the Armenian stories; then those of Eastern Asia, including the Persian, Indian, and Chinese; and thirdly, those of the American nations-the Cherokee, and the various tribes of Mexican Indians, with which-strange though it may seem-he groups those of the Fiji Islands. To these he adds, as a fourth cycle, the similar traditions of the Greek nations. But the most interesting of all these traditions is the Chaldean or Babylonian, which deserves more than merely passing notice."

He then goes on to give the Chaldean Narrative of the Flood.

So Leauki, it's just not a logical argument to stubbornly refute the historical and written evidence that this was much more than just a local flood.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Aug 14, 2008

well then what about the writer of the Hebrews who wrote in the first century looking back at the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 who used the word "world?" It's clear he was speaking of a universal flood not a local one.

Land can be earth. Earth can mean land. But world? World is world. The cosmos.

I think Leauki, you are so black and white (as I tend to be also) that you are not seeing the forest because you're eyeballing up close and personal one big tree.

You're getting caught up in semantics again.

Leauki

on Aug 14, 2008

How would I know why he would use the word "world"? The Hebrew word for "world" is "3olam". ("3" is an Ayin.)

Perhaps the writer of Hebrews changed the meaning according to his beliefs? Perhaps Christianity was made to believe in a global flood to fit a new theology?

But I am not trying to confirm Christianity. I am looking for the truth behind Torah, and if I find that Christianity changed part of the truth, I'll reject Christianity, not Torah.

The Muslims read the same story and took it as a local flood.

Land can be earth. Earth can mean land. But world? World is world. The cosmos.

And Hebrew has a word for world: "3olam".

The question is, why does it say "land" and not "world", if it was a global flood?

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Aug 14, 2008

Did you know that Islam believes that the flood was local? They read the same text and arrived at the conclusion that since the Tora said it was local, it was local. How do you explain that Arabic- and Aramaic-speakers understood the story to be about a local flood?

The Muslims read the same story and took it as a local flood.

you keep saying that as tho that settles it. First of all Islam wasn't even founded until the 7th Century AFTER Christ. So let's not take the earlier, writings and instead take the words of Islam? I gave you a first century account and you dismissed that for this 7th Century one? How does the Islam belief reconcile with the Babylonian records?

There are Babylonian records that are much older and in fact point to a global flood. According to Alfred Eldershem again:

"But a great interest attaches to the far earlier cuneiform inscriptions, first discovered and deciphered in 1872 by Mr. G. Smith, of the British Museum, and since further investigated by the same scholar (see Assyrian Discoveries by Geroge Smith London 1875).

These inscriptions cover 12 tablets, of which as yet only part has been made available. They may broadly be described as embodying the Babylonian account of the flood, which, as the event took place in that locality, has a special value. The narrative is supposed to date from two thousand to two thousand five hundred years before Christ. The history of the flood is related by a hero, preserved through it, to a monarch whom Mr. Smith calls Izubar, but whom he supposes to have been the Nimrod of Scripture. There are, as one might have expected, frequent differences between the Babylonian and the Biblical account of the flood. On the other hand, there are striking points of agreement between them, which all the more confirm the scriptural account, as showing that the event had become a distinct part of the history of the district in which it had taken place.....

It will be perceived that when the Chaldean account is compared with the Biblical narrative, in their main features the two stories fairly agree; as to the wickedness of the anteldiluvian world, the Divine anger and command to build the ark, its stocking with birds and beasts, the coming of the deluge, the rain and storm, the ark resting on a mountain, trial being made by birds sent out to se if the waters had subsided, and the building of an altar after the flood. All these main facts occur in the same order in both narratives.

It appears that at the remote age the Babylonians had a tradition of a flood which was a Divine punishment for the wickedness of the world; and of a holy man who built an ark, and escaped the destruction'; who was afterwards translated and dwelt with the gods."

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Aug 14, 2008

Perhaps the writer of Hebrews changed the meaning according to his beliefs? Perhaps Christianity was made to believe in a global flood to fit a new theology?

what new theology would it be? What purpose would it serve? Was Moses fooling with us when he wrote what he did? Why did Jesus confirm the story in the NT? Why did the writer of the Hebrews include Noah's story in his hall of fame including all the greats of the OT and descibe it as a universal flood? Peter, also did this in one of his letters. How could they all be so deceived? If they were, it started with the teaching of Moses.

Leauki

on Aug 14, 2008

In order:

1. The new theology of Christianity.

2. The purpose of supporting that new theology.

3. Moses was not fooling us which is why I read the story as he wrote it.

4. I don't know how Jesus confirmed the story.

5. I already answered that question. It was probably done to support the new theology.

Didn't you tell me that Christians see all sorts of symbolism in the global flood? Doesn't that symbolism require a global flood? Isn't that requirement a reason to believe in a global flood to make the flood story match Christian theology?

you keep saying that as tho that settles it. First of all Islam wasn't even founded until the 7th Century AFTER Christ. So let's not take the earlier, writings and instead take the words of Islam?

Islam didn't have a reason to modify the flood story to fit some new theology. The theology of Islam isn't much different from the theology of Judaism. But Christianity has many new elements, like the Trinity and the son of G-d and the holy spirit.

Seeing that the Ishmaeli version of the legend agrees with the Hebrew text (that it was a local flood) and seeing that Muhammed and his followers also understand it as a local flood is indeed important.

I gave you a first century account and you dismissed that for this 7th Century one? How does the Islam belief reconcile with the Babylonian records?

The Babylonian records also speak of a local flood in the region. The Babylonians had no idea whether America was also flooded. I have no doubt that they THOUGHT that the flood was global. But they were merely local observers.

The point is, and I can't believe that I even have to mention this, that Noah's ark was not big enough to hold all types of animals and the human gene pool is also too varied to be reduced to a single family 4000 years ago. We _know_, from observation, that there was no global flood. And the Bible confirms what we know: in spite of other legends being unclear on the subject, the Bible specifically tells us that _the land_ was flooded. And it does so using a word for _land_ when there is a perfectly usable word in Hebrew for "world".

You are believing in something that contradicts both observation and logic as well as scripture. That's paganism, plain and simple. And defending the belief doesn't make it better.

If G-d sent us the Torah it was certainly to teach us the truth, and this means you have to stop believing in pagan legends and accept what the Bible tells you and what observation (there is NO evidence at all for a global flood) and reason (Noah COULDN'T have saved all types of animals on his ark) also tell you (or would, if you cared to learn).

Incidetally, Greek legend tells of three great floods. Whom do you believe?

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Aug 14, 2008

Didn't you tell me that Christians see all sorts of symbolism in the global flood? Doesn't that symbolism require a global flood? Isn't that requirement a reason to believe in a global flood to make the flood story match Christian theology?

no, there is no new theology here. The symbolism is not in the global flood that I'm aware of but there is always a picture of the future in the past. For instance Noah is a picture of God's remnant. He always has a remmant. This is also a picture of mercy and grace in the midst of judgment. The ark was a picture of salvation in that Noah was safe and secure inside the will of God protected by the pitch (kaphar=atonement). It says Noah found Grace in the eyes of God so too do Christians find Grace in the eyes of God and are protected by the pitch (atonement).

The theology of Islam isn't much different from the theology of Judaism. But Christianity has many new elements, like the Trinity and the son of G-d and the holy spirit.

Christianity is borne out of Judaism. The NT writers and beginning believers had ONLY the NT scriptures to go by. They did not change anything. It just all took on new meaning after Christ came so they searchd the scriptures with new eyes. Remember the NT is the OT revealed and the OT is the NT concealed. The trinity and the son of God and the HS are all found in the OT many, many times. The working of the HS was diff tho. In the OT the spirit of God would rest on a believer but would not indwell or stay. Remember David said...."don't take your spirit from me?" We see how God did take his spirit from Saul.

that Noah's ark was not big enough to hold all types of animals and the human gene pool is also too varied to be reduced to a single family 4000 years ago.

Oh yeah it was and I can show you how. As far as the gene pool that's not an issue either. How many times have you heard them say that we all come from one ancestor? Besides all that we know the three boys represent three diff areas. Shem, the Hebrew and Semetic areas. Ham, the African nations and Japeth represents the Europeans.

You are believing in something that contradicts both observation and logic as well as scripture. That's paganism, plain and simple. And defending the belief doesn't make it better.

no. It's not logic. Read the context. There is NO way this is a local flood. It makes absoultely no sense in the remotest. I have a Hebrew/English Linear bible and it's clear using the Hebrew Masoretic text. In the foreward I read this:

"This work we believe contains all the Hebrew and Aramaic words which have been preserved for us by the Masoretes and which in total has come to be known as the Masoretic Text. This work also contains the Greek words as printed in the Stephens Edition of 1550 which has become known as the Textus Receptus or Received Text for the past four centuries.

Why did we use these particular texts? It is simply because these are the only texts which can justly be designated as received texts. In worldwide acceptance they tower so far above any other original Hebrew or Greek texts that there is no doubt but what they ust be used in a work such as this is, a work that is intended to become a standard work for all the English speaking peoples in the world. They are the Received Texts because no other text has been able to win the adherence of any group powerful enough to displace either the Masoretic or the Received Text from their place as the standard by which all others are measured."

It is earth they use not land because earth (eres) can mean earth; land. Eres does not only denote the entire terrestrial planet but is also used of some of the earth's component parts. English words like land, country, ground and soil transfer its meaning into our language.

Now "adamah" can mean "ground; land or earth". This noun also occurs in Arabic. Initially this noun represents arable "ground" (probably red in color). As such it supports water and plants; "but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground" (adamah) Gen 2:6. This meaning is in Gen 1:25 where it first appears: ..."every thing that creepeth upon the earth..." The word is contrasted to unproductive soil or "waste land," and the generic word for the surface of the planet "earth" which may represent either or both of the preceding words. The body of Adam was formed exclusively from the "adamah"; "and the Lord God formed man (Adam) of the dust of the ground (adamah)...." Gen 2:7.

Eres refers to the physical "ground" under the feet of men and animals. Upon the "ground" (eres) creep all creeping things. Eres may be used geographically, i.e. to identify a territory: "And Haran died before his father Terah in the "land" of his nativity." Gen 11:28.

I think it can be confusing and context is where it all comes together..

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!