Well, it has been a while since I did the last one of these, but hey, I’ve got plenty of time. At this rate, if I keep it up, and live to 75, I might get to Exodus.
So, anyway, god has just killed every non-aquatic animal except for Noah and his family and the animals on his ark. We now return to our, uh, protagonists, after the flood has done its work.
Genesis 8
1 But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. 2 Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. 3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.
6 After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark 7 and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent out a dove to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground. 9 But the dove could find no place to set its feet because there was water over all the surface of the earth; so it returned to Noah in the ark. He reached out his hand and took the dove and brought it back to himself in the ark. 10 He waited seven more days and again sent out the dove from the ark. 11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. 12 He waited seven more days and sent the dove out again, but this time it did not return to him.
My Commentaries:
So, god remembers Noah. So, for some reason, in order to get rid of the waters, he sends a wind. While I suppose it possible, under some circumstances, for a wind to solve the problem, how does the wind make the water recede? A minor point, but a problem none-the-less.
So, water has stopped pouring onto the planet from the waters that the heavens are holding up and, as some sort of clarification, the water goes down. The obvious question being, where is the water going to? Well, with our current knowledge, this makes no sense, but it is clearly in line with a flat-earth perspective…
Well, then Noah sends off some birds. My only real issue with this is where exactly would this olive leaf that the dove has come from? Plants can drown. The whole planet was just flooded for like 190 days! I mean, how did any non-aquatic plants survive at all?
The truly ironic bit is that the olive tree is supposed to represent wisdom. 
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Maybe... the wind blows Noah to the mountains where the waters will recede quicker, making it seem to Noah that all the waters are receding? And then, you know, air moving over water increases the rate of evaporation, especially if it's a warm wind, so that could do something as well....
I dunno. I'm still all for the whole regional flood thing, cause that makes sense in the flood plains of mesopotamia. And, you know, there's all those flood myths. Something apparently happened...
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I don't doubt a regional flood really.
Personally, I think this is one of my weaker ones, but I didn't want to start up again with a skipped chapter.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
I completely agree with all of this, and I'm Catholic.
I also don't take the Bible literally, especially in the Old Testament... but that's me. :-)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
I go to a Christian school and they teach how the world was formed from an evolutionary point of view as well as a Creationist point of view. These are all of course theories as no one can really prove what happened 2000 years ago.
They say that it had never rained ever before on earth as there was enough moisture in the 'O-zone' layer and atmosphere to keep everything lush and green. When it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, basically the protective atmosphere was rained away, this is a theory for how people dont live so long anymore. Now people are fully exposed to the Sun, apart from the O-zone as the protective atmosphere is now gone.
This is also a therory for how the dinosauours died out. Noah took a male and female animal of every kind, this includes dinos. It doesnt mean that he took a fully grown on, all animals are babies to begin with. Because the atmoshere changes after the rain the dinos just couldnt adapt to the new climate and therefore died out. Some dinos survived, eg. crocodiles that live in water and lizards but because of the changes they dont live as long, and therefore dont get as big.
The flood is also a theory for how crude oil was formed. Becasue all animals, people and plants drowned and were crushed by the pressure of the water their decomposing bodies were made into oil.
I guess to your comment about 'where did the olive leaf come from?" the actual olive tree didnt survive but its seeds did and once the water began to reside the seed was able to germinate.
These may just be theories and i may be educated at one weird as school but these points are definatly plusible. I think so anyway.
* Creationist only believe that the earth is aproximatly 20 000 - 10 000 years old as God created man, plants and animals all within the same time frame and that they didn't take years to evolve as evolutionist believe.
Some people walk in the rain, others just get wet. ~Roger Miller
Where do you get the 10K-20K years, cause all the creationists I know quote it at less than 6K years.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
To be totally honest i was not that sure so i wanted to be safe and say that number, but all the rest of my points i am pretty sure about.
Some people walk in the rain, others just get wet. ~Roger Miller
"They say that it had never rained ever before on earth as there was enough moisture in the 'O-zone' layer and atmosphere to keep everything lush and green."
Is there any evidence for this?
"This is also a therory for how the dinosauours died out."
Then why are dinosaur fossils so much older than even the fossils of the earliest man?
"The flood is also a theory for how crude oil was formed."
Well, yeah, but without the flood, the existence of crude oil still makes perfect sense...
"I guess to your comment about 'where did the olive leaf come from?" the actual olive tree didnt survive but its seeds did and once the water began to reside the seed was able to germinate."
In 150 days?!
"Creationist only believe that the earth is aproximatly 20 000 - 10 000 years old as God created man, plants and animals all within the same time frame and that they didn't take years to evolve as evolutionist believe."
So, then why are the fossils of some animals so much older than others and, as a matter of fact, older than 20,000 years old?
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"how does the wind make the water recede?"
Clouds from whence the rain water came are blown away?
---
"where is the water going to?"
The same place it came from would be too easy?
---
"where exactly would this olive leaf that the dove has come from?"
An Olive tree.
---
"how did any non-aquatic plants survive at all?"
A horticulturally focused ark? Mountain tops which did not flood until several days in, and likewise were clear of the receding waters first? Miraculous intervention?
Any description lacking sufficient technical details is a source for questions like these. The more details you lack, the more questions you might have. As an example of how a simple description to one perspective might be completely baffling to another:
I started the car and drove from New York to Philadelphia this morning. Traffic was so heavy I barely made it before lunch. I was alone so I listened to the London Philharmonic playing Beethoven's Fifth.
To each of us reading this today it is a simple and obvious description. To a reader only 200 years ago it would seem like an impossible fantasy.
Since the distance is ~5,000 years or more and not just 200 why assume the author should share your point of reference?
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
"Clouds from whence the rain water came are blown away?"
That wouldn't make the water recede. It would just make it stop raining.
"The same place it came from would be too easy?"
How does water recede into the sky?
"An Olive tree."
How exactly would an olive tree survive the flood?
"A horticulturally focused ark?"
No mention of bringing plants aboard, and even so, how would the olive tree off of the ark survive?
"Mountain tops which did not flood until several days in, and likewise were clear of the receding waters first?"
That's still close to 200 days under water.
"Miraculous intervention?"
If he could save a plant through divine intervention, then why bother with the whole ark thing at all?
"Since the distance is ~5,000 years or more and not just 200 why assume the author should share your point of reference?"
Days didn't change their length. Plants weren't more resilient to water before the flood.
Going down doesn't mean going up.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
The days do so change length. We're not at a constant distance from the Sun. I forget if they're getting longer or shorter, but we're moving laterally as well as elliptically.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
My Creative Writing
"That wouldn't make the water recede. It would just make it stop raining."
If it stops raining long enough you have a desert.
---
"How does water recede into the sky?"
They call it evaporation these days.
---
"If he could save a plant through divine intervention, then why bother with the whole ark thing at all?"
The olive question has even more possible answers than the ones I gave. The whole story doesn't happen without divine intervention, though the motives and exact nature of the divine is left far from fully explained.
---
"Days didn't change their length."
The perspective of the story is from an observer on a boat. If the narative was omniscient then your calculation of days would apply to all mountaintops. Since it isn't I would estimate it only applies to a line of sight from the boat about 32 miles in diameter unless the mountain was very far above the surface. The Dove being sent indicated that they were seeking things beyond their sight and knowledge. The narative only indicates the period of seven days between Dove flights, but does not even say the Dove was gone an entire day. The arial recon may have only extended to less than 100 miles even if the Dove flew all day.
This example of limited geographic perspective just underscores my point about the very limited temporal perspective of thinking literal interpretation of a translation of a written record of an oral tradition thousands of years old has more than alegorical value.
Two hundred years ago it was impossible to go NewYork to Philadelphia in a morning, and you certainly could not have listened to an orchestra that performed in London years before while you did it. Today you would complain if it took an extra half hour, or the sound quality was less than perfect. What is possible changes with time, and the words used to describe things change in meaning.
---
"Plants weren't more resilient to water before the flood."
Note that you are assuming that the tree had to be alive. The story does not say so. Would olive trees have to be alot MORE resilient?
"the age of an olive tree in Crete, claimed to be over 2,000 years old, has been determined on the basis of tree ring analysis.[5] Another, on the island of Brijuni (Brioni), Istria in Croatia, a well-known olive tree has been calculated to be about 1,600 years old."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
The perspective of the story is from an observer on a boat. If the narative was omniscient then your calculation of days would apply to all mountaintops.
But Noah isn't the narrator. He didn't write the story down. Someone many years down the line (supposedly Moses) wrote it with divine inspiration. So... the narrative could very well have been omniscient.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
You're right it isn't Noah's voice, but not God's either. Both are specificaly quoted in earlier parts, but this passage is a third party.
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
Yes! FInally someone admits the Bible wasn't completely the "word of God"!!
F*** Religion. Read more here:
http://www.progressiveu.org/020528-f-religion
Yeah, but was that olive tree submerged for close to 200 days?
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Possibly that many altogether, but maybe not consecutively. ;-)
I was amazed at how hardy they are when I looked. They do prefer a well drained soil, so I would guess they do not adapt to water saturated roots as well as a Cypress.
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
mmmm
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"'That wouldn't make the water recede. It would just make it stop raining.'
If it stops raining long enough you have a desert."
I guess it would be useless of me to point out that the water still has to go somewhere, namely up into the sky/down into the ground, so I won't. But still, conservation of matter and all that.
T.k.
"up into the sky/down into the ground"
"Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky."
The language is poetic, not precise. You would be wrong to think I was championing any particular theory about how such a flood occured, or whether the description here is absolutely accurate. I just think it is at least a parable of some value, and may describe actual events albeit imperfectly. Since many different translations and interpretations exist we know either the writing or the reading is certainly imperfect.
One theory for how floods of this scale could occur, and certainly have before is asteroid impact. Not only could such a strike send tsunamis halfway arround the world, but they could also vaporize many cubic miles of sea water to fall as planetwide rain for weeks. Interplanetary debris travels in clusters, so more than one impact would not be an improbable scenario. Such rain would also melt ice, and could alter the sea floor either permanently, or temporarily.
Then again it could be magic, or supernatural as some people imagine, and all technology beyond our understanding appears to be.
A Fact is Always Better Than an Ideal.
There are lots of plants that can be grown hydroponically. I think it would be harder with a tree, though.
Winds make some sense since they can increase the rate of evaporation by changing the concentration gradient (high winds = low humidity). This makes the water evaportate and pull more water along with it.
Assuming, however, that it was a world wide flood, maybe God pushed all the water back to Antarctica and froze it?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
My Creative Writing
lol
True, but that isn't a recession.
Well, not knowing the ratio of ice in Antarctica to water elsewhere, I couldn't say for sure, but I don't thing that there's enough ice there that, if turned into water would flood the whole world up to the highest mountain peak.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Well, there's the arctic ocean as well, plus all the glaciers... melting of those would cause a rather dramatic rise in sea level. Not sure if it would reach the top of Mt. Everest, but it'd be a dramatic rise none-the-less.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Highest mountain peak around. Noah landed on Mount Ararat. How tall is that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ararat
According to Wiki, it's about 5KM tall. It's an ice capped, dormant volcano. It's very possible that flooding could have caused this Mountain to be submerged, provided there was a large flood in Turkey. If the ice-caps (North and South) melted as per God's command and God then rained all over the valley, it's possible. Not likely, but possible.
I'm still for a regional flood, but I wouldn't discount it because Noah thought the whole world was flooded. Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink, you know? If you were floating around and just saw water all around and this was before you knew there was a world beyond what you'd seen, you'd think the world was flooded, too.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
My Creative Writing
I totally go for the regional flood theory.
I'd even say it likely that there were lots of big regional floods throughout the world.
I just don't go for the whole global flood thing.
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
Maybe the whole olive tree thing with the dove was added into the story. I don't know I question the bible's accuracy.
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
If any given section of the bible is up for questioning, then why trust the bible on the whole?
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I question the entire bible's accuracy. People lie, people fabricate things to make them sound better.
I just answered your question about how the dove was able to obtain that or any plant material for that matter.
The regional flood thing sounds plausiable. I just really don't know what to believe when it protains to the bible. Alot of it sounds far fetched.
http://www.progressiveu.org/032913-lupus-uncureable-wait-what
Love comments? I do too!
Maybe the bible is LITERATURE and not intended to be taken as a scientific account. Or maybe atheism is too "rational" to allow any text the right to be literature.
It is literature, but I question any and all literature if you don't question things that means all text is crediable, and that is not always the case. I am not atheist yet I don't agree on atheism being too rational to allow something to be considered literature.
I try to prove most things in a scientific manner because I am not going to have someone tell me something or read something, and then just be guilable enough to believe it.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am voting for Lewis Black.
DrifterDani~
There's a lot more to life than proving/ disproving the "truth" of things. There's a lot more to the Bible than that as well.
Many people take it as scientific truth. This is aimed at those people.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson