Does the flood account agree entirely with geology?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 32 by theStudent]
I see nothing unscientific about the flood account, nor the Genesis account, for that matter. It agrees entirely with geology.

Does the flood account in Genesis agree entirely with geology?[/quote]

[Looncall]

[Replying to post 32 by theStudent]
I see nothing unscientific about the flood account, nor the Genesis account, for that matter. It agrees entirely with geology.

Does the flood account in Genesis agree entirely with geology?

[/quote]

No, not at all. Those who claim it does are either con artists or their victims

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 32 by theStudent]
I see nothing unscientific about the flood account, nor the Genesis account, for that matter. It agrees entirely with geology.

Does the flood account in Genesis agree entirely with geology?

[/quote]

The list of things found in the field of geometry that contradict the fable of the global flood is rather enormous actually. There are literally so many facts in the field that couldn't be true if a global flood was responsible for all the fossil beds and sedimentary layers we find today that it makes the story utterly impossible...

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 32 by theStudent]
I see nothing unscientific about the flood account, nor the Genesis account, for that matter. It agrees entirely with geology.

Does the flood account in Genesis agree entirely with geology?

The list of things found in the field of geometry that contradict the fable of the global flood is rather enormous actually. There are literally so many facts in the field that couldn't be true if a global flood was responsible for all the fossil beds and sedimentary layers we find today that it makes the story utterly impossible...[/quote]

I think the prior comment meant geology rather than geometry (although the bibical flood myth no doubt violates some geometric principles as well), but the most damning arguments against it are the impossibility of creating enough water on the surface of the earth to cover the highest mountains via any mechanism not involving a "miracle" (eg. the ocean floors rising), and the impossibility of creating the genetic diversity and distribution of plant and animal life that exists on earth today from 8 humans and the animal contents of the ark starting a measly 4,600 years ago (or so).

Not to mention the even more ridiculous scenario that a 600 year old man (Noah, who supposedly fathered his first child at 500 years old with a wife of similar age), built such an ark and lived 350 years after the flood to die (as an anatomically moden human) at 950 years old. The whole story is so preposterous it is amazing that it can be believed by anyone in the 21st century, from a geologic standpoint or any other.

[Divine Insight]

Not to mention the even more ridiculous scenario that a 600 year old man (Noah, who supposedly fathered his first child at 500 years old with a wife of similar age), built such an ark and lived 350 years after the flood to die (as an anatomically moden human) at 950 years old. The whole story is so preposterous it is amazing that it can be believed by anyone in the 21st century, from a geologic standpoint or any other.

I'm in no way supporting the Biblical stories. But it has been suggested by some mathematics historians that it would have been far more likely that during biblical times men kept track of time by the cycles of the moon rather than by years. They suggest this because there are examples of ancient men keeping track of time using months instead of years.

So allowing for that, we have the following conversions:

500 months actually = 500/12 or about 42 years old. And remember in Biblical times his wife could have easily been a 12-year-old girl.

It was common for older men in the Bible to marry very young girls. Even what today would be considered a child.

And this places his final age at:

950 months actually = 950/12 or about 79 years old.

So allowing that these were actually measured as months and then later mistakenly taken to be years the age problem disappears.

But this doesn't help the rest of the fable.

I pointed this out once before and someone suggested that the Bible claims that it took Noah 100 years to build the ark. So they argue that he would have needed to be at least over 100 years old. However, the same reasoning applies here too.

100 months actually = 100/12 or about 8 months. Less than a year to build the ark.

Of course, the whole story of God asking a human to build an ark to save the animals from a worldwide food is ridiculous anyway. So allowing that these were just months instead of years doesn't help the overall myth. But it does at least make some sense of the ages. After all, dividing these numbers by 12 gives some very realistic years. So the idea that these were originally meant to be months makes a lot more sense (even as a myth).

And this same reasoning would then apply to all the early biblical figures that were said to have lived for many hundreds of years. Just divide by 12 and you get far more realistic ages.

[DrNoGods]

I'm in no way supporting the Biblical stories. But it has been suggested by some mathematics historians that it would have been far more likely that during biblical times men kept track of time by the cycles of the moon rather than by years. They suggest this because there are examples of ancient men keeping track of time using months instead of years.

I'm probably messing up the quoted section above (new here), but I've heard this years vs months description as well. My difficulty with it would be to ask when the transition from using months to years took place? For example, Moses was supposedly 120 years old at death, which would have been only 10 years old if that were months (hardly long enough to wander around in the desert for 40 years, unless that period were also in months (3.3 years) making the whole suffering story a lot less convincing!). Ditto for Abraham who would have died at 175 years, or only 14.6 years if the number was in months. So if the lower end of these age scales is considered (and even 120 years and 175 years are ridiculously long) it is at least very inconsisent unless there is a defined transition point when months to specify ages switched over to years.

As you say, there are mountains of other evidence to dispove that such a global flood happened when it supposedly did.

[Kenisaw]

Not to mention the even more ridiculous scenario that a 600 year old man (Noah, who supposedly fathered his first child at 500 years old with a wife of similar age), built such an ark and lived 350 years after the flood to die (as an anatomically moden human) at 950 years old. The whole story is so preposterous it is amazing that it can be believed by anyone in the 21st century, from a geologic standpoint or any other.

I'm in no way supporting the Biblical stories. But it has been suggested by some mathematics historians that it would have been far more likely that during biblical times men kept track of time by the cycles of the moon rather than by years. They suggest this because there are examples of ancient men keeping track of time using months instead of years.

So allowing for that, we have the following conversions:

500 months actually = 500/12 or about 42 years old. And remember in Biblical times his wife could have easily been a 12-year-old girl.

It was common for older men in the Bible to marry very young girls. Even what today would be considered a child.

And this places his final age at:

950 months actually = 950/12 or about 79 years old.

So allowing that these were actually measured as months and then later mistakenly taken to be years the age problem disappears.

But this doesn't help the rest of the fable.

I pointed this out once before and someone suggested that the Bible claims that it took Noah 100 years to build the ark. So they argue that he would have needed to be at least over 100 years old. However, the same reasoning applies here too.

100 months actually = 100/12 or about 8 months. Less than a year to build the ark.

Of course, the whole story of God asking a human to build an ark to save the animals from a worldwide food is ridiculous anyway. So allowing that these were just months instead of years doesn't help the overall myth. But it does at least make some sense of the ages. After all, dividing these numbers by 12 gives some very realistic years. So the idea that these were originally meant to be months makes a lot more sense (even as a myth).

And this same reasoning would then apply to all the early biblical figures that were said to have lived for many hundreds of years. Just divide by 12 and you get far more realistic ages.

Your point is taken, but it most be pointed out that the same book also speaks of months when discussing the flood, so it is quite a stretch to think they wouldn't use months instead of years if they really were counting his age by the number of full moons he had seen...