• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The Story Of The Great Flood (Biblical / Noah's Voyage; Other Ancient Traditions)

Would salt water sharks survive in a very much diluted ocean for the duration of The Flood ?

And where did the water go to ?
 
INT21 said:
Would salt water sharks survive in a very much diluted ocean for the duration of The Flood ?
Click to expand...

The amount of water necessary to raise sea level to the height of Mount Ararat worldwide would certainly have diluted the seas to the point marine animals would have had trouble surviving.

INT21 said:
And where did the water go to ?
Click to expand...

That's always been one of the most intractable issues with the flood story.
 
If we assume that the Flood story is actually based on a very serious flood in the region (possibly caused by a massive earthquake similar to the one that is supposed to be the cause of cities being submerged) there is still the question of how did the ark end up on the top of Mount Ararat.

And Noah et al then had to start the long trek back home. As well as go around the whole World procreating and repopulating the Earth.
 
I'm sure I don't have to say this but I'm going to anyway...probably best not to take the story as factually accurate.
 
hunck said:
I'm sure I don't have to say this but I'm going to anyway...probably best not to take the story as factually accurate.
Click to expand...

Really ! I'm shocked.

Are there any other parts that may not be strictly accurate ?

Things are getting bad when you can't even believe the Old Testament.

;)
 
INT21 said:
Really ! I'm shocked.

Are there any other parts that may not be strictly accurate ?

Things are getting bad when you can't even believe the Old Testament.

;)
Click to expand...

Yet here you are, asking where did the water go, how did the ark end up on Mt Arafat, & so on & so forth. You're expecting sensible debate on these?
 
hunck said:
Yet here you are, asking where did the water go, how did the ark end up on Mt Arafat, & so on & so forth. You're expecting sensible debate on these?
Click to expand...

Of course not.
How could there be any actual sensible debate on anything with so many obvious inconsistencies ?

Best file it all under 'Ripping Yarns'.
 
INT21 said:
If we assume that the Flood story is actually based on a very serious flood in the region (possibly caused by a massive earthquake similar to the one that is supposed to be the cause of cities being submerged) there is still the question of how did the ark end up on the top of Mount Ararat. ...
Click to expand...

The Bible doesn't claim the ark ended up atop Mount Ararat. Genesis 8:4 simply states the ark came to rest on or around the "mountains of Ararat." "Ararat" (aka "Urartu") was the historical name of the region where Mount Ararat lies.

The specific claim that the ark landed on top of that particular mountain only dates back to around the 11th century CE.

In any case ... Even though Genesis states the hills and mountains were covered Genesis 7:20 says that the waters prevailed on the lands to the extent of 15 cubits. That's only approximately 22.5 feet. The scriptures aren't clear whether this 15 cubits represents the flood's depth from original ground level versus the extent to which it rose higher than the highest point of land.

Speaking of the flood's timeline ...

Genesis states the rain lasted 40 days and 40 nights, as we've always heard:

And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
Click to expand...
Genesis 7:17

However, Genesis 7:24 states "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."

Genesis states the ark came to rest at "the mountains of Ararat" exactly 5 months after the rain / flood started (2nd month / 17th day until 7th month / 17th day).

Then, confusingly:

And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
Click to expand...
Genesis 8:5

At face value this suggests the ark came to rest on / around the mountains of Ararat circa 2.5 months before the tops of any mountains were visible. ???? ...
 
EnolaGaia said:
At face value this suggests the ark came to rest on / around the mountains of Ararat circa 2.5 months before the tops of any mountains were visible. ???? ...
Click to expand...

deep draught!
 
I have posted this in another Ark related thread but it belongs here too. Irving Finkel, chief curator at the British Museum giving a 1 hour presentation on building his own Ark to the Bible's specifications.

 
EnolaGaia said:
The Bible doesn't claim the ark ended up atop Mount Ararat. Genesis 8:4 simply states the ark came to rest on or around the "mountains of Ararat." "Ararat" (aka "Urartu") was the historical name of the region where Mount Ararat lies.

The specific claim that the ark landed on top of that particular mountain only dates back to around the 11th century CE.

In any case ... Even though Genesis states the hills and mountains were covered Genesis 7:20 says that the waters prevailed on the lands to the extent of 15 cubits. That's only approximately 22.5 feet. The scriptures aren't clear whether this 15 cubits represents the flood's depth from original ground level versus the extent to which it rose higher than the highest point of land.

Speaking of the flood's timeline ...

Genesis states the rain lasted 40 days and 40 nights, as we've always heard:


Genesis 7:17

However, Genesis 7:24 states "And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days."

Genesis states the ark came to rest at "the mountains of Ararat" exactly 5 months after the rain / flood started (2nd month / 17th day until 7th month / 17th day).

Then, confusingly:


Genesis 8:5

At face value this suggests the ark came to rest on / around the mountains of Ararat circa 2.5 months before the tops of any mountains were visible. ???? ...
Click to expand...
Finkel (in the video posted above) mentions that the true translation was 'among the mountains of Ararat' - which could mean a resting place in a valley somewhere, rather than on top of Mount Ararat.

If all the ice in the world melted, it would raise the water by an estimated 216 feet. So 22.5 feet isn't an outrageous claim.
So, whatever caused the Great Flood was either a localised phenomenon, such as a megatsunami, or it was something that caused a melting of part of the world's ice (perhaps a very sudden global warming effect).
If it happened at all.
 
Last edited:
The most likely origin of the flood story is surely the Black Sea in which fresh water creature's remains have been found, showing it to have been a freshwater lake prior to inundation of salt water from the Med as rynner posted back in 2002, & caused by global warming at the end of the last ice age. A flooding in a localised area. Signs of human occupation have been found below the surface & you can imagine people having to move further & further back quite rapidly as it increased in size.

A megatsunami in [fairly] recent times would've left evidence. What caused it - an asteroid strike?
 
INT21 said:
I don't recall any mention of the situation immediately after the flood.

The whole world being littered with the rotting corpse of every person and animal that wasn't on the ark.

One would think it would at least get a mention.

INT21.
Click to expand...

How cynical would it be to suggest that Genesis doesn't mention the aftermath of the flood because there doesn't seem to be any relevant mention of it in either the Atra-Hasis Flood Epic or the Gilgamesh Epic ?
I read that if the Biblical flooding related to rising water in the Black Sea 'cradle of civilisation', then the flood spread would have been a max of 10 kilometres a day - devastating, but still sufficient time to keep most people and livestock moving ahead of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top