Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[otseng]

Zzyzx and I have agreed to do a head-to-head debate on the Biblical flood.

The question for us to debate:
Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[Zzyzx]

.

Multiply by 45 lb/ft3 would give 2,581,875 lbs.

I will concede that your number for the weight of lumber needed to build the ark is correct. Two and a half million pounds of lumber – which equals fifty fully loaded 18-wheeler tractor/trailers –

Four men and their wives (no others were mentioned in Genesis so they would be pure conjecture) perhaps using animal power (more conjecture) cut that many trees, hewed them into timbers, transported them, lifted them into place and fashioned them into a ship larger than any KNOWN to have existed – using only the rudimentary tools available in that era.

They did??????

According to the Bible, they had iron and brass tools before the flood.

Gen 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain [was] Naamah.

Does that passage verify that iron TOOLS were present before the flood?

As usual, the bible disagrees with non-biblical, historical information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age
Classically, the Iron Age is taken to begin in the 12th century BC in the ancient Near East, ancient India (with the post-Rigvedic Vedic civilization), and ancient Greece (with the Greek Dark Ages). In other regions of Europe, it started much later. The Iron Age began in the 8th century BC in Central Europe and the 6th century BC in Northern Europe. Iron use, in smelting and forging for tools, appears in West Africa by 1200 BC, making it one of the first places for the birth of the Iron Age.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9042796/Iron-Age
Iron Age: final technological and cultural stage in the Stone–Bronze–Iron-Age sequence. The date of the full Iron Age, in which this metal for the most part replaced bronze in implements and weapons, varied geographically, beginning in the Middle East and southeastern Europe about 1200 BC but in China not until about 600 BC. Although in the Middle East iron had limited use as a scarce and precious…

That is another indication that the biblical tale is not literal. Yes, the bible claims that Noah and his family built an ark of massive dimensions. It is very unlikely that such a thing happened in reality.

Let’s talk about collecting animals. Supposedly eight people collected every “kind” of animal on the face of the Earth – from poles to tropics – without transportation – in a week.

That alone makes it obvious that the tale is a myth. That cannot happen in reality.
.

It was longer than a week.

In chapter 6, Noah was commanded to build the ark and to bring animals into it.

There is no indication of the time period between chapter 6 and chapter 7.

In chapter 7, verse 4, God gave the 7 day warning. So, it doesn't mean it only took one week to gather up all the animals since he was given the commandment in chapter 6.

Okay, how long do you propose that Noah took to gather the animals? It would appear as though Genesis is saying seven days, but interpretations evidently vary.

Also, according to the FM, there were no oceans during that time as there are now. So, there wouldn't be any landlocked animals. The climate was more uniform and the polar regions were not as cold. Since the climate was more uniform, there was less of a need to go large distances to get representative animals.

The FM does NOT give any reason to believe that there were no oceans “as there are now”. That is CONJECTURE. One could just as well guess that there was more ocean than there is now – neither is backed up by anything at all – just pure guess.

Even with this illogical simplification, how could eight people gather pairs of all animals in the world – including the largest and the microscopic – with no transportation?

It seems as though that is an impossible task.

Where does the Bible say anything about an olive "tree"? It only mentions an olive "leaf".

A leaf is able to come from a young plant. It doesn't have to come only from a mature tree.

I agree that the proverbial olive leaf could have come from a seedling like the one pictured above.

Can you demonstrate that the seedling can produce leaves in less than two months? That is the time from when the tops of mountains became visible until the end of the flood.

Olives are evidently difficult to grow from seeds and are usually reproduced from rootstock. That is not typically a rapid process.

Again, it seems as though the tale continually disputes reality. If it had only a few flaws one might agree that they could be misunderstandings. However, when virtually every aspect of the tale is diametrically opposed to reason, logic, common sense and nature, it is difficult to accept all the mini-miracles required to “explain” how “it might have happened”.

Why not just say, “God did it” and “God can do anything”?
.

[otseng]

Does that passage verify that iron TOOLS were present before the flood?

Yes, it means that they had iron tools.

Classically, the Iron Age is taken to begin in the 12th century BC in the ancient Near East, ancient India (with the post-Rigvedic Vedic civilization), and ancient Greece (with the Greek Dark Ages). In other regions of Europe, it started much later. The Iron Age began in the 8th century BC in Central Europe and the 6th century BC in Northern Europe.

This would be close to when the flood occurred, so there would be no gap of iron technology. (I gave some estimates of when the flood occurred here.)

Okay, how long do you propose that Noah took to gather the animals? It would appear as though Genesis is saying seven days, but interpretations evidently vary.

There are no direct statements of how long it took to build the ark and gather the animals. But, from these two verses, it could've been up to 100 years.

Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Gen 7:6 And Noah [was] six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Even with this illogical simplification, how could eight people gather pairs of all animals in the world – including the largest and the microscopic – with no transportation?

There are different interpretations of this. Of course one answer is that God brought all the animals to the ark. And I lean toward this because it says to "bring" the animals into the ark, rather than "gather".

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Whereas later, Noah was commanded to "gather" food.

Gen 6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather [it] to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

So, this seems to indicate that they had to actively go out and gather food and did not have to gather animals.

Can you demonstrate that the seedling can produce leaves in less than two months? That is the time from when the tops of mountains became visible until the end of the flood.

It could've been at least 4 months from the time the ark rested on mount Ararat.

Gen 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Gen 8:5 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.

Gen 8:6 ¶ And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

Gen 8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

4 months is plenty of time to grow some leaves.

"After six to eight weeks, roots should begin to form. Cuttings may be potted after 10 to 12 weeks."
http://extension-horticulture.tamu.edu/ ... olive.html

[Zzyzx]

.

Does that passage verify that iron TOOLS were present before the flood?

Yes, it means that they had iron tools.

When did the flood occur?

Between 100,000 to 5,000 years ago with leanings towards the latter date.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age
Classically, the Iron Age is taken to begin in the 12th century BC in the ancient Near East, ancient India (with the post-Rigvedic Vedic civilization), and ancient Greece (with the Greek Dark Ages). In other regions of Europe, it started much later. The Iron Age began in the 8th century BC in Central Europe and the 6th century BC in Northern Europe. Iron use, in smelting and forging for tools, appears in West Africa by 1200 BC, making it one of the first places for the birth of the Iron Age.

This would be close to when the flood occurred, so there would be no gap of iron technology. (I gave some estimates of when the flood occurred here.)

Supposedly the flood occurred at least 5000 years ago.

The earliest iron smelting and forging of tools 1200 BC 1200 BC = 3200 years ago

5000 – 3200 = 1800

Religious interpretation. If the first known tools were forged 1800 years AFTER the latest proposed date of the flood that is “. . close to when the flood occurred so there would be no gap of iron technology”.

Scientific interpretation: If the first known tools were forged 1800 years after the latest proposed date of the flood, there were obviously no iron tools before the flood. They came almost 2000 years later.

Which makes more sense?

Okay, how long do you propose that Noah took to gather the animals? It would appear as though Genesis is saying seven days, but interpretations evidently vary.

There are no direct statements of how long it took to build the ark and gather the animals. But, from these two verses, it could've been up to 100 years.

Gen 5:32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Gen 7:6 And Noah [was] six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

Of course, eight people lived long enough to spend 100 years building an ark.

Is there non-biblical evidence to indicate that people 5000 years ago lived hundreds of years, or is this another unsubstantiated biblical claim?

Even with this illogical simplification, how could eight people gather pairs of all animals in the world – including the largest and the microscopic – with no transportation?

There are different interpretations of this. Of course one answer is that God brought all the animals to the ark. And I lean toward this because it says to "bring" the animals into the ark, rather than "gather".

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

Whereas later, Noah was commanded to "gather" food.

Gen 6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather [it] to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

So, this seems to indicate that they had to actively go out and gather food and did not have to gather animals.

If Noah and family “did not have to gather the animals”, how did the animals arrive at the ark?

Can you demonstrate that the seedling can produce leaves in less than two months? That is the time from when the tops of mountains became visible until the end of the flood.

It could've been at least 4 months from the time the ark rested on mount Ararat.

Gen 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Gen 8:5 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.

Gen 8:6 ¶ And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

Gen 8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

4 months is plenty of time to grow some leaves.

Where do you get four months? The tops of the mountains were not seen until the tenth month. Where did the olive grow if the tops of mountains could not be seen?

"After six to eight weeks, roots should begin to form. Cuttings may be potted after 10 to 12 weeks."
http://extension-horticulture.tamu.edu/ ... olive.html

I agree with the rooting schedule for a LEAFY CUTTING under the conditions specified. The pertinent information from the page you quoted is:

Most modern propagation is from leafy cuttings rooted under mist. Take eight-inch long, pencil-sized cuttings from the tree in August or Septemberfor best results. Remove the lower leaves and treat the base of the stem with Indole-butyric acid (IBA) at 4000 ppm in diluted alcohol for five seconds. (level 1/4 teaspoon IBA, 509 ml 95% ethyl alcohol, 50 ml water) or with a commercial rooting compound.
The top two inches of the cutting may be removed or left on. Place the cutting stem-down in a mixture of equal parts peat, perlite or vermiculite, and sand. The media should be pasteurized and treated with a fungicide. Hold the cuttings under intermittent mist.
After six to eight weeks, roots should begin to form. Cuttings may be potted after 10 to 12 weeks. After potting, fertilize the rooted cuttings with a dilute fertilizer, but avoid burning the roots with excessive nitrogen. The cuttings may be transferred to the nursery the following spring.

It seems as though it is a bit of a struggle to come up with a magic olive leaf.

Perhaps one could conclude that the tellers of the original tale did not take into account that their story of a worldwide flood would destroy all olive trees, so they envisioned a dove going out and just finding a tree with a leaf on it.

In order to defend a “literal bible” this has to be “interpreted” to a dove going out and finding a seedling to pluck a leaf.

Doves are not grazing animals, they do not eat leaves, they eat seeds. Is there any evidence to suggest that doves carry leaves – or any reason that would return to an ark carrying a leaf? Is this a magic dove or another “miracle”?


Who knew about all the events of the flood to tell the tale? When were they recorded? By whose hand?
.

[Zzyzx]

.
The Magic Olive Leaf

According to creationist theories presented here, an olive tree (seedling, plant, whatever) sprouted after the flood so a leaf could be found by a dove and mysteriously returned to the ark (evidently so Noah would know that the flood was over??). A few minor problems arise from that story.

Olive trees do not grow on bare igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary rock. They grow in SOIL.

Soil is composed of weathered parts of rock mixed with decayed organic material, living organisms, air and water. Soil formation is a slow process, as any gardener or soil scientist can attest.

Creationists propose that the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited by “The Flood”. If so, they would not have been overlain by soil when the water receded.

However, an olive seedling or sprout magically sprouted immediately in order to fulfill the flood story claims.

This leads to a more general problem with the flood story. Supposedly the Earth was re-vegetated very quickly so humans and other animals could repopulate the Earth.

There would have been no soils anywhere on Earth if the flood theories are correct (all sedimentary rocks were deposited and all major erosional features were formed). Any existing soils would have been swept away by erosion or buried by sedimentation.

It is known that soils take decades or even centuries to form atop bare rock. How could that have happened rapidly enough to fit the tale?

Is this another "goddidit" “mini-miracle” required to “explain” the flood as being literal? Perhaps that is why many theologians have concluded that the flood is NOT literal.
.

[otseng]

Supposedly the flood occurred at least 5000 years ago.

The earliest iron smelting and forging of tools 1200 BC 1200 BC = 3200 years ago

"Iron appears to have been smelted in the west as early as 3000 BC, but bronze smiths, not being familiar with iron, did not put it to use until much later."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomery

"Iron seems to have been known here as early as 3000 BC, but first became an important metal about 1200 BC."
http://www.staff.hum.ku.dk/dbwagner/EARFE/EARFE.html

The earliest dated usage of iron appears around 4000 BC. This would have been
meteoric iron. This special type of iron contains a high percentage of nickel which
helps the iron to resist oxidation. Meteoric iron is clearly different from iron found
on earth and all early iron products would have been from meteoric iron.

http://www.sciencebyjones.com/metallurgy_notes.htm

These will fall at over 5000 years ago.

But even if the use of iron tools is questionable, bronze is not.

The place and time of the invention of bronze are controversial, and it is possible that bronzing was invented independently in multiple places. The earliest known tin bronzes are from what is now Iran and Iraq and date to the late 4th millennium BC, but there are claims of an earlier appearance of tin bronze in Thailand in the 5th millennium BC. Arsenical bronzes were made in Anatolia and on both sides of the Caucasus by the early 3rd millennium BC. Some scholars date some arsenical bronze artefacts of the Maykop culture in the North Caucasus as far back as the mid 4th millennium BC, which would make them the oldest known bronzes, but others date the same Maykop artefacts to the mid 3rd millennium BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age

Also, it is disputable that iron is superior to bronze. Certainly steel is superior to bronze, but this technology came later.

The reality is that ancient iron was far too variable in quality to be clearly superior to bronze. Pure iron is very soft; most ancient iron was impure and often brittle.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/xancient.htm

"With the exception of steel, bronze is superior to iron in nearly every application."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze

"In its simple form iron is less hard than bronze"
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Pla ... oryid=ab16

Iron also oxidizes much more easily than bronze. So, based on these two qualities, bronze could've been more preferred than iron.

Also, bronze is an alloy of copper and tin. And iron is not an alloy. Iron ore is also much more available than copper and tin deposits. So, in terms of the composition, it would've been more difficult to create bronze.

[Zzyzx]

.
I agree that bronze tools would have been available 5000 years ago and that bronze could have been superior to early iron for tool making.

Insisting that tools were available (evidently to make ark construction seem more believable); however, eliminates the possibility that the flood occurred any longer ago than about 5000 years (far from the 100,000 maximum specified earlier)

When did the flood occur?

Between 100,000 to 5,000 years ago with leanings towards the latter date.

This seems to clarify another point:

Did dinosaurs exist until the time of the flood?

Yes.

Thus, you must be claiming that dinosaurs existed until about 5000 years ago. This conflicts radically with studies by archeologists, paleontologists, and zoologists that show evidence that dinosaurs became extinct and have not lived on the Earth for millions of years.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/a.buckley/dino.htm
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjec ... /allabout/
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life ... index.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/extinct.html
http://www.infowest.com/life/dinosaurs/extinct.htm

What evidence can you cite to indicate that your position is correct and the people who actually study these matters are incorrect?

Does it seem reasonable that those who actually study plants, animals, anthropology, history, Earth sciences, astronomy are ALL WRONG and that creationists who study none of these fields are right?

I would suggest that theologians are experts in the study of religious beliefs AND that their expertise ends with the study of religious beliefs. Theological study is NOT adequate training to understand and interpret complex matters that one has not studied.

When did humans first occupy the Earth?

Humans occupied the Earth prior to the flood.

The question was, “When did humans FIRST occupy the Earth?” That asks for the beginning of occupancy. I let that slide earlier but now that we are being specific about times, let’s pin down human times as well.


The greatest fallacy that I see in attempting to fit nature to scripture (the goal of creationism) is that it MUST deny a great deal of everything learned by actual study of nature. By setting arbitrary religious limits on what can be considered, theology attempts to limit understanding to ONLY that which fits the thinking of Bronze Age storytellers and writers.

People who told stories a few thousand years ago had far less understanding of nature than we have presently. Their stories reflected their ignorance. For modern people to restrict themselves to the level of understanding of biblical story tellers, is to ignore all the advancement of knowledge that has occurred in thousands of years.

Of course, the same people who ridicule science happily use the benefits it provides – including technology (example computers), engineering (examples transportation and construction), medicine (whenever they are ill), etc.

At best this represents “pick and choose science” (accept parts that agree with religion and reject everything that disagrees) and at worst it represent hypocrisy.
.

[Zzyzx]

.
Magic required for the flood (as presented in this thread) to be literal


1. Rainfall rates of 30 feet per hour on every square foot of the Earth’s surface for a total of 960 hours (six weeks) non-stop

2. Four men and their wives building a ship larger than any wood ship ever known to exist – one and a half football fields long and as tall as a five story building --and gathering 2.8 million pounds of wood and hewing it into planks

3. All of the Earth’s plants surviving a year of being flooded with salt water and being buried by sedimentation and undergoing erosion, mountain building and continental upheaval

4. Vegetation regeneration atop newly deposited sedimentary rocks (no soil)

5. Animals from entire planet collected by eight people without transportation – including all microscopic animals that could not have been known to the people

6. Animals returned to diverse habitats worldwide by eight people without transportation (including very delicate animals)

7. Evolution of plants and animals more rapid than any ever proposed by science

8. Fresh water fish surviving a year in salt water

9. Continents being shoved apart by water pressure

10. Faulting being caused by water pressure

11. Earth’s mountains being built in a year

12. All sedimentary rocks deposited in a year

13. All major erosional features produced in the same year sediments were deposited

14. One hundred percent survival rate for pairs of animals for one year on ark – and successful repopulation of the Earth by each single pair of animals (when we know that in reality animals whose population declines to a few breeding pairs are very likely to go extinct)

15. Carry aboard the ark enough feed for all animals for a year (including carnivores and herbivores with very specific diets).

16. Environmental requirements being met for all animals with a crew of eight on the ark

17. Furnishing adequate climate control aboard an ark with millions of animals with a single 17.5 inch window

18. Repopulation of the Earth by humans beginning with less than one couple per every two continents

19. People living hundreds of years and producing children at advanced ages

20. Millions of cubic miles of water magically appearing, killing all animals (but magically not killing plants), then magically disappearing

21. Presence of a “water blanket” atmosphere pre-flood (though there were obviously people, animals, plants)

22. Claimed absence of rain pre-flood (even though humans and crops lived at the time)

If a few details were illogical, one might accept the tale as literal by excusing the errant details as mistakes. However, when the entire tale is one colossal illogical claim after another, it is unreasonable to claim that it is literately true.

Perhaps it is time to use the all-purpose “goddidit”?
.

[otseng]

Where do you get four months? The tops of the mountains were not seen until the tenth month. Where did the olive grow if the tops of mountains could not be seen?

From the time the ark rested on Ararat to the time the dove got the leaf would be around 4 months.

The olive plant could've grown next to the ark.

Olive trees do not grow on bare igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary rock. They grow in SOIL.

Immediately after the flood, all the sedimentary layers had not yet lithified. It was not solid rock at that time. More on this when I get back to the FM.

Doves are not grazing animals, they do not eat leaves, they eat seeds. Is there any evidence to suggest that doves carry leaves – or any reason that would return to an ark carrying a leaf?

Where does the Bible say that the dove was eating the leaf?

If Noah and family “did not have to gather the animals”, how did the animals arrive at the ark?

How did they arrive? Either flew, walked, hopped or crawled. Why did they come? Again, I lean towards divine intervention.

Insisting that tools were available (evidently to make ark construction seem more believable);

I kinda doubt that Gen 4:22 was placed in the Bible just to make the ark construction more believable.

Thus, you must be claiming that dinosaurs existed until about 5000 years ago. This conflicts radically with studies by archeologists, paleontologists, and zoologists that show evidence that dinosaurs became extinct and have not lived on the Earth for millions of years.

Certainly it is at odds with theories that conform to an old earth.

Does it seem reasonable that those who actually study plants, animals, anthropology, history, Earth sciences, astronomy are ALL WRONG and that creationists who study none of these fields are right?

Could be.

The greatest fallacy that I see in attempting to fit nature to scripture (the goal of creationism) is that it MUST deny a great deal of everything learned by actual study of nature.

I don't think it is a "fallacy". But it is a hindrance.

Your argument primarily seems to be this: The FM is contrary to almost all the major sciences. Therefore the FM is wrong.

My argument is this: Let's get down to the basic evidence and compare the models and see which one fits the data better. And the primary evidence that we should look at is the geological evidence.

[Zzyzx]

.

Again, I lean towards divine intervention.

Ah yes, the religionist’s ultimate “explanation”. When something can obviously NOT be explained with reason and logic or even with pseudo-science, a religionist can always resort to “goddidit” or “god can do anything”.

It is obvious that the Noah family could not collect pairs of every animal from all points of the globe – which strongly discredits the biblical account.

But wait; why not claim that god directed the animals to report to the ark? That will “explain” how the animals got there. Animals from all over the world converging on the ark. Those that obviously cannot make the trip (which could be as much as 12,450 miles on the Earth) on their own can be “assisted by god” (a divine airlift, so to speak).

Since anything, no matter how illogical, can be “explained” with “goddidit”, why bother to have a discussion or debate when all that is necessary is to claim, “I favor divine intervention” and “god can do anything” – and thereby void all reason and logic.

“Divine intervention” can obviously “explain” how such a large ship could be constructed of wood, how every animal on the Earth could be aboard the boat (perhaps in miniaturized form and in suspended animation) – because “god can do anything”. That “explains” the Earth’s continents, oceans, landforms, mid-ocean ridges, etc. Of course, “god can make water come and go at will” so why bother trying to understand or discuss the matter – just believe in a supernatural god.

With religious “explanations” at hand, there is no need to study nature and attempt to understand the Earth we inhabit or discuss what we learn. It is no wonder that creationists regard the study of geology, archeology, paleontology, etc as a waste of time (or profoundly incorrect). All we need do is read the bible and repeat, “god can do anything because the bible tells me so”.

We just demonstrated that when backed into a corner trying to justify illogical biblical claims the “out” is “goddidit” (rather than admitting that the task as described is impossible and the bible is in error). Every religionist claim is subject to the same ultimate defense, so reason and logic do not apply to the debate. Religion claims the right to retreat to supernatural “explanations” when arguments fail.
.

[otseng]

It is obvious that the Noah family could not collect pairs of every animal from all points of the globe – which strongly discredits the biblical account.

Noah had no need to collect every pair of animals, but simply a representation of all the animals. Again, since the climate was more uniform and there were no oceans, there was less of a need to travel remote distances to get representative animals.

However, my position is primarily from interpreting the Biblical passages of the use of the words "gather" and "bring".

I will make the comment that, in general, I do not like to use "God did it" with non-Christians. But, if we are to base our discussions on Biblical text, then it will be unavoidable. That is why I spend the majority of my time on the forum debating from a scientific point of view. Instead of concentrating on religious texts, I like to use emperical evidence (primarily from secular sources) to argue for a Christian worldview.

With religious “explanations” at hand, there is no need to study nature and attempt to understand the Earth we inhabit or discuss what we learn.

If you are ready now to look at the geological evidence, I am more than willing to start discussing that again.