Did God drown women and children in noah's flood?

[HansTrappist]

As I understand it, the scientific consensus is that anatomically modern humans have been around for about 200k years. I’m unaware of any concerted mainstream scientific effort to establish Adam’s birth date.

“anatomically modern humans” does not equate to Adam. Nice try.

Also, if you’re going to cite a reference that gives the impression of being from a reputable source, it might be advisable to cite one that doesn’t have the following disclaimer on their home page:

This material does not necessarily represent any organization, including the University of North Carolina and the State of North Carolina.

If you are going to try and discredit research, it might be advisable to cite something better than a disclaimer.

 

[JM3]

The Jewish people call this year 2013 in their own Hebrew calendar year 5772 from the time of Abraham

From the creation of Adam.

 

[GEddie]

From the creation of Adam.

It’s actually 5773.

Our LORD was born in Jewish year 3760. The year turns on Rosh Hashanah.

ICXC NIKA

 

[cornbread_r2]

“anatomically modern humans” does not equate to Adam. Nice try.

Unless you’re claiming that Adam was not an anatomically modern human, then it seems that Adam could have been around for as long as 200K years.

I’ve read any number of people who claim that humans weren’t truly human until God infused them with souls. Yet, when I ask when this was supposed to have occurred, I never get a response. It seems only fair that if they’re going to claim that the biblical Adam existed that they also provide some clue as to when to start looking for evidence.

If you are going to try and discredit research, it might be advisable to cite something better than a disclaimer.

IMO, any website that uses unc.edu in its url while not having any connection whatsoever with the University of North Carolina has already lost any presumption of credibility. That listing is nothing more than an attempt to deceive.

 

[HansTrappist]

IMO, any website that uses unc.edu in its url while not having any connection whatsoever with the University of North Carolina has already lost any presumption of credibility. That listing is nothing more than an attempt to deceive.

So, in other words, you are not actually disputing the research cited on this page: cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html.

 

[cornbread_r2]

So, in other words, you are not actually disputing the research cited on this page: cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/humanity.html.

In order to dispute it, I’d have to actually read it. As I indicated previously, that website’s deceptive web address was enough to prejudice me against any research found there. I’m aware that I’m committing a genetic fallacy here but, in this case, I’m not in the least bit disturbed by that.

 

[Aloysium]

or do we admit this tale is an unpleasant myth?

The story is very powerful and steeped in meaning. It could serve as a myth, expressing for example, psychological dynamics. A psychoanalytic understanding would be along the lines of: Libidinal forces, unleashed and threatening the destruction of the child, are submerged in the unconscious as the child enters a stage of latency. But it is far more than this:

Since it is mentioned in the New Testament, I related to Christ. “As it was in Noah’s day, so will it be when the Son of Man comes . . .” The ark is the wood that carried the animals and the wood of the cross that carries us to everlasting life. The flood is baptismal water that washes away sin and the final judgement, when all sin is destroyed leaving the glory, in which our love participates, of God. The Bible provides a description of God’s involvement with mankind in this world, so i believe there is historical truth in the story of Noah. It most certainly appears that women and children drowned. Adam’s lack of faith and disobedience, and all that has followed, have brought us death. We can be saved, but not if we do not do God’s will, which directs us to salvation. The matter is most serious.

 

[centurionguard]

It’s actually 5773.

Our LORD was born in Jewish year 3760. The year turns on Rosh Hashanah.

ICXC NIKA

Actually your mistaken. the Hebrew year 5773 doesn’t officially begin until September, 2013.
hebcal.com/holidays/2013-2014

 

[centurionguard]

From the creation of Adam.

The Hebrew calendar, represented by the date Heshvan 5, 5760, is the oldest from the time of Abraham. Before Abraham there was no official documented historic archives kept. Everything was passed down by word of mouth by tribes, ancesters, and famlies. We are to believe all biblical history sketchy as it was then especially concerning pre-history of the story of Noah and the Flood, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and transcribed by ancient historians who later keep sacred Hebrew texts. At the time of Abraham they knew far far less if anything about the Story of Noah than what has been accumulated and inspired by the the Holy Spirit now.

 

[LilyM]

Unless you’re claiming that Adam was not an anatomically modern human, then it seems that Adam could have been around for as long as 200K years.

I’ve read any number of people who claim that humans weren’t truly human until God infused them with souls. Yet, when I ask when this was supposed to have occurred, I never get a response. It seems only fair that if they’re going to claim that the biblical Adam existed that they also provide some clue as to when to start looking for evidence.

IMO, any website that uses unc.edu in its url while not having any connection whatsoever with the University of North Carolina has already lost any presumption of credibility. That listing is nothing more than an attempt to deceive.

And what would you do if we said ‘yes, the bodies of Homo sapiens were first infused with souls by God in year xyz.’? We are not claiming that there would be any physically discernible signs of this occurrence were you to examine human remains from that era, any more than we claim that there are physically discernible signs of our Eucharist really being Christ’s flesh and blood.

So it would achieve no purpose were it possible.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

In order to dispute it, I’d have to actually read it. As I indicated previously, that website’s deceptive web address was enough to prejudice me against any research found there. I’m aware that I’m committing a genetic fallacy here but, in this case, I’m not in the least bit disturbed by that.

Perhaps the reason that he would have a website hosted on the UNC domain is that he is a professor of computer science at the University of North Carolina. And perhaps, furthermore, the reason that he includes the disclaimer is because it is courteous of him to remind his audience that he is posting on his personal website personal writings which were not written in affiliation with the university. Or should people employed as professors be forbidden write about anything other than that which they have their degree in and only pertaining to that research which is conducted through the universe hosting their webpage?

 

[cornbread_r2]

And what would you do if we said ‘yes, the bodies of Homo sapiens were first infused with souls by God in year xyz.’? We are not claiming that there would be any physically discernible signs of this occurrence were you to examine human remains from that era, any more than we claim that there are physically discernible signs of our Eucharist really being Christ’s flesh and blood.

So it would achieve no purpose were it possible.

I realize that the Catholic Church doesn’t make that claim. However, I have gotten the distinct impression from some posters here that the possession of a rational soul is what separates humans from all other animals with our rational, conceptual, cognitive and creative abilities, among others. If that’s true, then we might be able to detect some significant difference in the cultural remains and artifacts of soul-infused humans and their non-soul-infused humanoid contemporaries.

(I’m not addressing the extraordinary preternatural gifts that the first parents were also supposedly granted since it seems that they lost those almost immediately.)

 

[Dave_B]

Since it is mentioned in the New Testament, I related to Christ. “As it was in Noah’s day, so will it be when the Son of Man comes . . .” The ark is the wood that carried the animals and the wood of the cross that carries us to everlasting life. The flood is baptismal water that washes away sin and the final judgement, when all sin is destroyed leaving the glory, in which our love participates, of God. The Bible provides a description of God’s involvement with mankind in this world, so i believe there is historical truth in the story of Noah. It most certainly appears that women and children drowned. Adam’s lack of faith and disobedience, and all that has followed, have brought us death. We can be saved, but not if we do not do God’s will, which directs us to salvation. The matter is most serious.

So if I understand correctly you are saying the story is symbolic. But that Jesus thought Noah was a real person.

I just wonder is it more likely that the Noah story was based the on earlier Mesopotamian myth, the Epic of Gilgamesh?

And if we dont believe the story. Shouldnt we say clearly that it is not true, rather than skate around it?

 

[HansTrappist]

Perhaps the reason that he would have a website hosted on the UNC domain is that he is a professor of computer science at the University of North Carolina. And perhaps, furthermore, the reason that he includes the disclaimer is because it is courteous of him to remind his audience that he is posting on his personal website personal writings which were not written in affiliation with the university. Or should people employed as professors be forbidden write about anything other than that which they have their degree in and only pertaining to that research which is conducted through the universe hosting their webpage?

Thank You. You hit the nail on the head.

It is for the same reason that Michael Behe includes the disclaimer that his views do not represent the views of Lehigh University.

One thing that the materialists are terrified of is a free and honest scientific debate. That is why they have blacklisted people like Behe. For the materialists, Science is not so much about truth-seeking, rather it functions as a form of therapy to keep their minds off of the Creator and the afterlife; Epicurus designed modern science (aka Materialism) in precisely this way.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Perhaps the reason that he would have a website hosted on the UNC domain is that he is a professor of computer science at the University of North Carolina. And perhaps, furthermore, the reason that he includes the disclaimer is because it is courteous of him to remind his audience that he is posting on his personal website personal writings which were not written in affiliation with the university. Or should people employed as professors be forbidden write about anything other than that which they have their degree in and only pertaining to that research which is conducted through the universe hosting their webpage?

If UNC web hosting policy permits linking to professors’ personal websites, even to sites pertaining to work not affiliated with their university work, then I apologize for both my ignorance on that subject and for accusing the author of dishonesty.

 

[Aloysium]

So if I understand correctly you are saying the story is symbolic. But that Jesus thought Noah was a real person.

I just wonder is it more likely that the Noah story was based the on earlier Mesopotamian myth, the Epic of Gilgamesh?

And if we dont believe the story. Shouldnt we say clearly that it is not true, rather than skate around it?

i’m not sure how to categorize what i’m saying

for me the story contains Truth on several levels:

i believe that the story describes actual people
actual people died and someone called Noah, who spoke with God, saved his family and animals
others who did not or perhaps would not obey, perished
the story in the Bible sounds embellished, perhaps having picked up elements of other great stories/myths as you suggest

there is also a lesson/message in this: that God intends that we live
it is through doing His will that we live
what is sinful is not fit for His creation, and will be ultimately destroyed when the world ends
it was created and it will end

this lesson is brought home with a warning, also stated elsewhere, that we must be prepared and must follow God’s will

now, i believe Reality is God’s vison within eternity
this would include the true natural universe
(as opposed to the mental constructs that we develop in our interactions with it: formulations based on idividual frames of reference and which cannot grasp the totality - sorry if this sounds like jibberish)
i believe there is actually a beatific vision, which is the true reality
it may sounds like i am speaking symbolically where i am describing what i see as the ultimate reality

i would agree that it’s better to say you don’t believe in something, if you don’t
hopefully this doesn’t sound like skating around the issue, i am trying to be clear, but we likely see the world differently

 

[cornbread_r2]

Thank You. You hit the nail on the head.

It is for the same reason that Michael Behe includes the disclaimer that his views do not represent the views of Lehigh University.

One thing that the materialists are terrified of is a free and honest scientific debate. That is why they have blacklisted people like Behe. For the materialists, Science is not so much about truth-seeking, rather it functions as a form of therapy to keep their minds off of the Creator and the afterlife; Epicurus designed modern science (aka Materialism) in precisely this way.

How do you account for the Christian scientists who think that Creationism/ID is a bunch of hoo-haw?

 

[GEddie]

Actually your mistaken. the Hebrew year 5773 doesn’t officially begin until September, 2013.
hebcal.com/holidays/2013-2014

No, I was right, according to chabad.org:

Tuesday, January 22, 2013
11 Shevat, 5773

 

[davidmlamb]

When looking at Genesis specifically as a Catholic its far beyond being just a Fable.

Although it is not a dogma of the Catholic Faith that Genesis is either a myth or historical, yet we are obliged to accept with religious assent that the Genesis account on creation is historical narrative in the literal sense.

philvaz.com/apologetics/p100.htm

.

Hello there Phil! I hope you remember me.

I suppose “fable” is a crude word however I do accept Genesis “with religious assent." But IMO its religious implications prefigures the Church and the flood waters pre-figures Baptism. There is strong evidence that there was a very large flood around the same time period in the Mesopotamian area and these traditions have been taught for a few millennia by many cultures.

I do not believe the flood was worldwide and that it carried a sample pair of every animal on the earth. The size of the ark would have had to be much larger in volume than the largest Supertankers of today. Moreover the logistics of caring for the animals such as feeding and cleaning up and disposing their waste would not be possible with the crew and technology they had available to them. I suppose one could argue all the animals went into long term hibernation but they would still need water to survive.

The religious implication of the story of Noah’s flood is vast and significant and can also be thought of as a mystery to which the faithful ought to meditate upon. A story that is inspired by God does not have to be historically accurate or even true. It just has to communicate a spiritual truth. Of course I am just stating my opinion on this matter

 

[nordskoven]

creationism.org/swift/Acambaro/index.htm

Did God drown dinosaurs in the Great Flood? How come there are figurines of dinosaurs when they were supposed to be long gone when mankind started tromping about? How did these guys know what Godzilla looked like when we are still confused as to how the joints articulated?

I don’t see any reason to jettison the Great Flood. It would be hard to erase any part of Genesis for that matter as it can easily be reconstructed from other cultures, from the creation of the First Man & Woman, the universality of a male priesthood atoning for the First Man’s sin triggered through woman’s disobedience/eating (strawberies per the Miao of China…hehe); Cain & Abel sibling slaughter; king lists paralleling the first ten patriarchs of Genesis; and of course the dramatic Great Flood where man floated to safety in a big drum…or on a turtle…and landed on the sacred mountain memorialized with pyramids or mini-mounds or naming mountains as THE Sacred Mountain; with those animal pairs undergirding thrones of Noah & Wife.

Science shows we are made of the stuff of the Earth; we had one first daddy and mama; anesthesia is a good thing for sleeping through medical procedures like Adam’s divinely-induced sleep; that cloning from another’s tissue is possible; as is gene tweaking in the literal “refinement” describing the First Woman; that we came from four main genetic groups like the four couples on Noah’s or Yu’s or Zeusudra’s Ark. Now what? Good science is good religion. How can we get rid of God’s history of hope? Will the atheist materialists attempt to choke us with the cares of the world? God forbid. Let’s keep our eyes on the prize. See you in Heaven, please God.