Zone1 Do other ancient culture myths support the Great Flood spoken of in the Bible?

[Votto]

Here is one I just saw on Youtube. Never heard of this before, but apparently there were ancient writings saying there was no moon preflood, but once the moon was place it caused a climate shift causing a great flood.

 

[Woodznutz]

Lots. Lots of goofy characters and circumstances but a common event... a great flood. Only the Genesis account makes sense.

List of flood myths - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[alang1216]

Lots. Lots of goofy characters and circumstances but a common event... a great flood. Only the Genesis account makes sense.

Odd that the only physical evidence we have for flooding, is local. Barring a supernatural miracle, here was never at time that the whole Earth was under water.

 

[Woodznutz]

Odd that the only physical evidence we have for flooding, is local. Barring a supernatural miracle, here was never at time that the whole Earth was under water.

The Bible doesn't say that it was. The depth/height of the flood was mistranslated.

There is no way to determine if the whole earth was under water at any given time. Too many floods and other geological events have occurred since the great flood. Also, Noah's flood wouldn't have left uniform evidence.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Lots. Lots of goofy characters and circumstances but a common event... a great flood. Only the Genesis account makes sense.

List of flood myths - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These Legends Are Distortions of True Events

The melting of the Alpine glaciers created a lake that extended from Switzerland to Afghanistan. Noah's Ark, among many others, landed in the Caucasus Mountains.

 

[Woodznutz]

These Legends Are Distortions of True Events

The melting of the Alpine glaciers created a lake that extended from Switzerland to Afghanistan. Noah's Ark, among many others, landed in the Caucasus Mountains.

That's not what the story says.

what are the mountains of ararat in the bible - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[alang1216]

The Bible doesn't say that it was. The depth/height of the flood was mistranslated.

There is no way to determine if the whole earth was under water at any given time. Too many floods and other geological events have occurred since the great flood. Also, Noah's flood wouldn't have left uniform evidence.

Ahh, so what is the correct depth/height of the flood. And don't underestimate the science of geology, it is very likely that some evidence Biblical flood would remain since evidence of floods much older do remain.

 

[toobfreak]

Here is one I just saw on Youtube. Never heard of this before, but apparently there were ancient writings saying there was no moon preflood, but once the moon was place it caused a climate shift causing a great flood.

That is rubbish. The Moon has always been there and is in fact the major part of what stabilizes the Earth that has allowed life to develop and evolve for the past 600 million years.

 

[Woodznutz]

Ahh, so what is the correct depth/height of the flood. And don't underestimate the science of geology, it is very likely that some evidence Biblical flood would remain since evidence of floods much older do remain.

Noah's flood wasn't the "gulley washer" most picture. It was a slow-moving event, much like the tides, for the most part, which would leave spotty evidence at best. Recall that it took 40 days for the flood waters to even reach the ark.

The flood didn't have to cover the highest mountain as there was no "living substance" up there.

 

[Zebra]

yes, they do

 

[Votto]

That is rubbish. The Moon has always been there and is in fact the major part of what stabilizes the Earth that has allowed life to develop and evolve for the past 600 million years.

Wrong. The moon has not always been there.



The origins of the moon is a fascinating topic for scientists. In fact, it appears that the moon should not exist at all.

The Moon is one of our solar system’s most remarkable and perplexing objects. Its existence poses a series of scientific problems that challenge our understanding of celestial mechanics, planetary formation, and internal structure. Among these mysteries are its unusual origin, the asymmetric distribution of its mass, and the unique dynamical coupling between its spin and orbit. Together, these factors highlight the Moon’s anomalous nature and invite deeper investigation into how it became what it is today.

A Puzzling Origin​

The prevailing theory for the Moon’s origin is the Giant Impact Hypothesis. According to this model, the Moon formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago when a Mars-sized body, often referred to as Theia, collided with the early Earth. The resulting debris coalesced into the Moon. However, this theory is not without its challenges. Simulations of such impacts struggle to reproduce the Moon’s unique isotopic composition, which is nearly identical to Earth’s mantle, suggesting an implausibly high degree of mixing between the two bodies. Furthermore, the Moon’s orbit and angular momentum pose additional difficulties for this explanation.

Alternative theories, such as capture or co-accretion, fail to explain these peculiarities as well. The capture hypothesis, for instance, requires extremely specific conditions to avoid the Moon escaping Earth’s gravity or spiraling inward. Meanwhile, co-accretion does not account for the Moon’s depletion in volatiles compared to Earth’s mantle. Thus, the Moon’s origin remains an unresolved puzzle.

The Mystery of Mass Asymmetry​

Another perplexing feature of the Moon is the non-uniform distribution of its mass. This asymmetry is evident in the phenomenon known as the lunar “mass concentration” (or mascon) anomalies. These regions of higher density are concentrated beneath the Moon’s large basins, such as those created by ancient impacts. This uneven mass distribution shifts the Moon’s center of mass away from its geometric center, causing a notable asymmetry.

The implications of this asymmetry are profound. For one, it suggests that the Moon’s interior is far more complex and rigid than previously thought. Such rigidity would have been crucial in preserving the mass distribution over billions of years, resisting internal convective processes that might otherwise homogenize the material. Understanding the origin and persistence of this rigidity requires further investigation into the Moon’s geological and thermal history.

Spin-Orbit Coupling: A Rigid Connection​

The Moon’s synchronous rotation, or 1:1 spin-orbit coupling, is another extraordinary characteristic. This configuration means the Moon always shows the same face to Earth, a phenomenon resulting from tidal interactions between the two bodies. Over time, these interactions have dissipated energy and locked the Moon’s rotation period to match its orbital period.

However, the precision of this coupling implies that the Moon’s internal structure is highly resistant to deformation. This rigidity is inconsistent with traditional models of a partially molten or geologically active interior. Instead, it points to a crust and mantle that are exceedingly stable, raising questions about the early conditions that allowed such a state to develop.

Why the Moon “Shouldn’t” Exist​

Taken together, these factors suggest that the Moon is an outlier among natural satellites. Its anomalously large size relative to Earth, its isotopic similarity, its asymmetric mass distribution, and its rigid internal structure all defy expectations based on our understanding of planetary formation and dynamics. The Moon’s existence and characteristics are so improbable that some scientists have humorously referred to it as a celestial “accident.”

Yet, these very anomalies make the Moon an invaluable laboratory for studying planetary processes. Its unique properties provide insights into the history of the solar system, the mechanics of spin-orbit coupling, and the evolution of planetary bodies. As we continue to explore the Moon through robotic and crewed missions, we may uncover the answers to these enduring mysteries — or perhaps even more questions.

 

[toobfreak]

Wrong. The moon has not always been there.

Look, Votto, trust me, I know all about the Moon. Stick with things you know about and not some crackpot new theory someone dreamed up. The Moon formed soon after the formation of the Earth when an impactor about the size of Mars gave Earth a glancing blow. The Moon is the result of orbital debris which congealed together after the heavier stuff fell out back to the Earth.

 

[alang1216]

Noah's flood wasn't the "gulley washer" most picture. It was a slow-moving event, much like the tides, for the most part, which would leave spotty evidence at best. Recall that it took 40 days for the flood waters to even reach the ark.

The flood didn't have to cover the highest mountain as there was no "living substance" up there.

• If it was global but not miraculous, where did the water come from and where did it go?
• Spotty evidence is different from no evidence. Even twice daily tides leave evidence.
• I thought Noah's birds didn't find any place to land initially.

 

[Woodznutz]

• If it was global but not miraculous, where did the water come from and where did it go?
• Spotty evidence is different from no evidence. Even twice daily tides leave evidence.
• I thought Noah's birds didn't find any place to land initially.

The flood was either miraculous or God planned the whole thing around a geological event that he knew was going to happen. The water came from and returned to the sea, the deep.

Tidal evidence if any gets all mixed up with other tides.

The dove was likely guided by God.

 

[alang1216]

The flood was either miraculous or God planned the whole thing around a geological event that he knew was going to happen. The water came from and returned to the sea, the deep.

Tidal evidence if any gets all mixed up with other tides.

The dove was likely guided by God.

If you claim it was supernatural, I can't dispute that. If you claim it was natural, I can say, not a chance, unless you can tell me why and how the water came from the deep? Where did the 'deep' go?

 

[Woodznutz]

If you claim it was supernatural, I can't dispute that. If you claim it was natural, I can say, not a chance, unless you can tell me why and how the water came from the deep? Where did the 'deep' go?

A small upwelling of the sea floor from pressure beneath would cause worldwide flooding. The water would recede when the upwelling abated.

 

[Woodznutz]

Ahh, so what is the correct depth/height of the flood. And don't underestimate the science of geology, it is very likely that some evidence Biblical flood would remain since evidence of floods much older do remain.

The correct depth/height of the flood was about 16 feet higher than the people on the highest hill.

 

[progressive hunter]

Ahh, so what is the correct depth/height of the flood. And don't underestimate the science of geology, it is very likely that some evidence Biblical flood would remain since evidence of floods much older do remain.

your religion is making an opinion based on the assumption it happened over millions of yrs and has yet to provide any concrete evidence for its claim,,

but you already knew that,,

 

[ding]

Odd that the only physical evidence we have for flooding, is local. Barring a supernatural miracle, here was never at time that the whole Earth was under water.

It's the embellishment aspect that you can't get past.

 

[progressive hunter]

Where did the 'deep' go

it still right where it was,, "deep"