ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Christianity, the Bible & Jesus

Legends of the flood (Part 3) The Biblical flood

Updated on August 8, 2015

Noah's Ark

Where the real Noah's Ark rests.
Where the real Noah's Ark rests.
How did he build it?
How did he build it? | Source

The Bible's account

We've looked at some of the oral traditions of the story of the flood and some of the written accounts not found in the Bible but now it's time to look at the story of Noah and see if what the Bible says actually makes any sense in this modern era.

Most people read the Bible thinking that it's giving a literal 'blow by blow' account of what went on. I may shock you to say it doesn't and it never pretended to! The Bible is much more interested in why something happened than how it happened. That's not to say that it doesn't record events as they happened (it does) but when you look at what it really tells us then the picture can be very interesting and very different to what you expect.

The whole point of the first five chapters of Genesis is to tell us how far from God man had drifted in the time it took for the generations from Adam to Noah to live.

Legend or not?


For two hundred years everything about the Bible and other Holy Books (Qur'an and Torah) was challenged by scholars in the west. Nothing was accepted and the academia of the day thought that 'at best' these books were nice stories of fables and fairy tales from an age long ago. The Outbreak of WW1 and the horrors man inflicted on himself convinced many that there was no God and if there was he wasn't worth the effort if he allowed his creation to go on this way!

In the late 1920s and early 1930s Sir Leonard Woolley (already a famous archeologist and kind of an 'Indiana Jones' of his day) was working on a site in southern Iraq when he started making some surprising discoveries. Deep in the earth he started finding evidence of massive flooding of an area four hundred miles long and about one hundred miles wide somewhere about 4,000 BC

From this work he was the first to propose that there actually was a great flood of the 'known world' of that time but it wasn't a global flood as such.

One interesting thing is I've just been reading an article written for the Daily Telegraph (A very reputable UK Newspaper) saying that Scientists at the university of Leicester have calculated that the Ark had a capacity for 70,000 animals without sinking. Here is the link to the article


What is interesting is that the Bible never tells us Noah's starting point, just where he ended up, on the Mountains of Ararat

Where is the Ark?

show route and directions
A markerMount Ararat -
Mount Ararat, Iğdır Province, Turkey
get directions

Is the Ark here? The oldest legends have the Ark coming to rest on the actual Mountain. The Bible simply says 'Mountains of'

B markerMount Pir -
Mount Pir, Armenia
get directions

The Epic of Gilgamesh says the Ark is here! Is it?

C markerMount Judi -
Mount Judi, Şırnak, Turkey
get directions

The Qur'an and some medieval Jewish traditions say that the Ark is here. The Bible and the Jewish scriptures allow for all three to be right!

Could the flood have been a local one?

Since then Historians and Archaeologists have proposed a number of possible 'local floods' that could have been big enough to take up the whole 'known world' the only problem is they're in different places and thousands of miles apart (but all around the same time 5,000 to 7,000 BC)

Suggested places for the flood

  1. Tigris/Euphrates basin.
    Where the two rivers merge has been noted for centuries to be prone to flooding. Woolley noted this and it was part of his reason for suggesting the idea of a local flood. The evidence that he found at ancient Ur in Southern Iraq and other places confirmed that there was a massive localized flood around 4,000 BC
  2. The Persian Gulf.
    More recently Scientists have discovered that at some time in the distant past the Persian Gulf was actually dry land with a Mountain range at the strait of Hormuz sealing off the region that was below sea level. A massive earthquake broke the natural dam and allowed the water to gush in thus flooding the entire region. Scientists have dated this event to around 8,000 BC (using their carbon dating methods that are not all that reliable (see my hubs on 'Creation Myths')
  3. The Mediterranean Sea.
    Situated literally between the two continents of Europe and Africa and according to Geologists some five million years ago according to their dating methods (see my hub Creation Myths part 2 for the accuracy of the methods) about five million years ago a major earthquake caused by the bucking of the tectonic plates allowed water into the area that flooded the whole region in a period of about a year! (see the note below about this location)
  4. The Black Sea.
    The latest theory is that the flood was a 'Black Sea' event that occurred some 7,000 years ago in a similar way that the Mediterranean sea happened with devastating consequences for the fledgling civilization of the time.

Myth tells us that Atlantis (the mythological city that was lost underwater due to a major earthquake and flooding) was somewhere in what is now the gulf of Cadiz! (other locations have been suggested but this is the most popular and was proposed by Plato (4th Century BC) who got the information from Solon one of the founders of Athens and a leading light in the creation of the concept we now call democracy.

These events are fascinating in themselves. But what if they are only part of the story. What if they all happened at the same time and were part of the wider flood?

The Bible makes it clear that the event was one of global proportions. Many have said that it was the 'known world of the time' but with the idea that the 'known world' was a small area of a few hundred miles wither side, IT WASN'T!!

We know from archeological evidence that the world at 4,000 BC was actually vast with Egypt already trading as far away as China (Chinese silk found in the tombs dating to the 1st Dynasty circa 3,600 BC) and Afghanistan. The first and earliest temples found have not been in the Middle east where we expected them but in the Orkney Islands off the coast of Scotland and dating back to at least 3,000 BC

By the time of Moses (when the account was put into it's final form around 1,400 BC Britain was trading both Copper and Tin (the two ingredients for Bronze) with Spain and from there the wider world.

All the ancient accounts make it clear that they were talking of a global flood, but why?


The Black Sea flood?

Or was it global?

Which one do you think in nearer the truth? (Both are reputable news agencies and that's why I used that footage)

One is by ABC News and covers the idea of a local flood. The other is CBN News and covers the idea of a global flood

See results

Why the Bible's account can't be a 'later copy of the Babylonian'

There is the argument among scholars that the Bible's account is a sixth century rewrite of the epic of Gilgamesh possibly 'padding out' an earlier spartan narrative and using various parts of the Gilgamesh narrative to build the flood account into a credible narrative. But that is at best a shortsighted idea that disregards evidence both in the account itself and what we know of the Ancient world.

Tradition has it that Moses penned the book of Genesis during the forty years the children of Israel were wandering in the desert. At times in the account Egyptian words occur in the account that can't really be explained except to say that maybe the writer was struggling to find the right word in the language he was using (Moses first language would probably have been Egyptian) so he/she reverts to the language that are more comfortable with. Interestingly enough that's exactly what happens when the narrative talks about the Ark! The Word (תיבת נח pronounced tebah) is originally an Egyptian (a Hamitic language) loan word. If the source was Babylonian or Akkadian you'd expect the writer to use the Akkadian word but it's not there! The same happens in his account of being found in the bulrushes where Egyptian words are found not Babylonian!

The evidence is a bit 'thin on the ground' at first glance but so far we've only dealt with the first six chapters of the Genesis account and they show they can't be late copies of the Babylonian. But clearly there must have been another source for both of them to have access to the material. I believe there was and as we go through we 'll look at that idea.

Noah's Ark and the sailing ship

Noah's Ark was so big many believed it couldn't have been built then
Noah's Ark was so big many believed it couldn't have been built then | Source
Bigger than most ships built in the 18th Century
Bigger than most ships built in the 18th Century

Why did the flood happen?

Reading the Bible's account it seems straightforward why the flood happened. Man got too sinful right? Not necessarily.

You see in Genesis chapter 6 verse 1 and 2 it says that the 'sons of God' married the daughters of men and began to have children. Many scholars argue that this is the sons of Seth marrying the daughters of the descendants of Cain thus corrupting the line of the true worshipers and leading them into apostasy. But there is another possible explanation that is much more sinister.

The 'sons of God' may also refer not to Human beings but also to spirit beings or Angels who on seeing the beauty of creation and in particular the women walking the earth that they transformed themselves into men to come and marry the women (Greek Mythology has this happening a lot especially with Zeus) to have children by them. As this went on the line of men was corrupted from the original creation until there was only one line left, that of the family of Noah!

What may have been going on is known to us today as Genetic engineering and has even been tried in our time (the Nazis were trying to create a master race!) and to some degree is still going on in the laboratories of the world today. This may have actually been the trigger that caused God to move in such a dramatic way to prevent the corruption from totally wiping out the human race.

Noah built the Ark and all the while it was a message to the people that the flood was coming but still no one would listen until the floods came and everything not inside the Ark perished

What could God have used to cause the flood?

Water right! But where did it come from? Sounds dumb but the amount of water required to flood the earth would be more than is stored in the polar icecaps. And then where did it all go?

I can't answer the latter yet but as for the former I think I can shed some light on it. Recently I was watching the movie 'Deep Impact' starring Elijah Wood and Morgan Freeman where an asteroid about two miles in diameter is on the way to earth. The devastation it's expected to cause is basically so great that they're facing the extinction of all life on the planet! The movie is fiction, but the worrying fact is that the calculations for damage aren't!! Could the flood of Noah have been caused by a massive meteorite strike?

Such things have happened in the past.in fact below is a record of all meteorite strikes in the last hundred years (that we know of). Most of these were only tiny but a few (like the one in Nicaragua in Sept 2014) were as big as a house!

Comets and meteorites are mostly made up of Ice and dust. The Rosetta Mission (launched in 2004 was specifically sent out to investigate the feasibility of landing on a comet and telling us what they are made of, it's doing both and might just answer where the water came from for Noah's flood.

As to where it all went well maybe once the water subsided it flowed down,found a new equilibrium (with the Mediterranean sea, the Persian Gulf and the Black sea being created and the rest freezing at the polar icecaps to await global warming!

Meteorite Strikes in the last 20 years

Most of these were tiny. but some were as big as a house and some in history have been known to be much bigger (it was an asteroid strike that created the Gulf of Mexico)
Most of these were tiny. but some were as big as a house and some in history have been known to be much bigger (it was an asteroid strike that created the Gulf of Mexico) | Source

The Movie "Noah"

Before leaving this hub I want to mention the movie that Russel Crowe was in last year where he played Noah. I finally watched the movie over Christmas and was pleasantly surprised. It's not the Biblical account of the flood but is taken mostly from the Apocryphal book of Enoch. The story really addresses some issues well. Especially the issue of how do you cope with the idea that what you know of what God has told you is going to be bad news for your family! (Noah spends almost the whole movie believing that while God wants him to build the Ark man is to become extinct!) Noah is almost driven mad by the partial revelation that he's given but he's faithful to it and it's only at the end that he finally realizes that he had part of it wrong and God wanted Humanity to survive. It was thoroughly watchable (I want to say enjoyable but it's not a light movie by any stretch) and well done. I'm not going to put a link here but want to recommend the movie as one to watch for it's dealing with the Human side of Noah

A new theory

Someone explained to me a few weeks ago that scientists start with Hypotheses, they are the ideas that haven't yet been tested. Once there's been testing and the tests seem to hold up the idea then it becomes a working theory as the science community can take the ideas and run with them because there are parts that work and they can build on them.

Recently I came across an idea that started as a Hypothesis but is now a working theory from a Creation point of view. The Theory is called the Hydroplate theory.

Below is a link that explains the theory.

Dr Walt Brown and the Hydroplate Theory

Final comments

I've avoided most of the traditional stuff that people look for when talking about the Ark simply because I think there is just too much evidence for the flood and the Ark to ignore! I wanted to look at other parts of the whole and try to draw some stuff out of that.

There's a lot of stuff we haven't mentioned but I hope I've covered enough to give you some idea of just how much material there is around.

If you liked this hub and want to read more then once you've left a comment below head back up to the top of the page and click on my name which will take you to my profile page where you can read more of my hubs

Blessings

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      Not sure why but it seems you deleted some of your own comments so I'm not sure what was written.

      The 'omissions' I think you're talking about are some of the occasions in Joshua and Judges. It's simple really, not all the events affected all the tribes!

      Quite a few of the events only affected certain local areas so only the tribes or clans living in that area are recorded.

      Hope that helps

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      The omission is what I am talking about not additions.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Buddinsense

      I just looked at the stuff you sent through. If you'll actually read the Bible you'll see my explanation still stands!

      Nothing new here

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Here is the table that list according to the books,

      http://usercontent1.hubimg.com/12664222_f1024.jpg

      I only the bible itself is confused about the tribes. It is simply added at different times, there were no "twelve" tribes. It is not Genesis alone, but judges, chronicles, deutronomy.....

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Interesting

      The list if the tribes according to Genesis 29 vs 31 to 30 vs 24 are

      1) Reuben

      2) Simeon

      3) Levi

      4) Judah

      These were children of Leah

      5) Dan

      6) Naphtali

      These were children of Rachel's maid Bilah

      7) Gad

      8) Asher

      Born to Leah's maid Zilpah

      9) Issachar

      10) Zebulun

      Children of Leah

      11) Joseph (later to be split into two tribes Ephraim and Manassah)

      12) Benjamin

      Gilead was a region just East of the Jordan where the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half the tribe of Manassah settled in the region.

      Barak is one of the Judges from the book of Judges (his father was an Israelite but his mother was a prostitute!)

      Machir was the only son of Manassah (not a seperate tribe Genesis 50 vs 23)

      Meroz was a town cursed for not helping Barak (he wasn't impressed with the people living in Gilead either) so its good at times to check the book yourself rather than rely on a critic!

      I used the Nelson study Bible (New King James version) to check this.

      I'll look at the rest tomorrow

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      TRIBES of ISRAEL GEN 29:31 to 30:24 GEN 46:8-27 GEN 49:3-27 EXO 1:2-5 NUM 10:14-27 NUM 26:5-51 NUM 34:16-29, 35:1-8 DEU 33:6-24 JUDG 1:17-36 JUDG 5:14-23 1CHR 2:1-2 1CHR 6:54-80

      1 ASHER X X X X X X X X X X X X

      2 BENJAMIN X X X X X X X X X X X

      3 DAN X X X X X X X X X X X

      4 GAD X X X X X X X X X

      5 ISSACHAR X X X X X X X X X X X

      6 JOSEPH X X X X X X X X X X

      7 JUDAH X X X X X X X X X X X

      8 LEVI X X X X X X X X

      9 NAPHTALI X X X X X X X X X X X X

      10 REUBEN X X X X X X X X X X

      11 SIMEON X X X X X X X X X X

      12 ZEBULUN X X X X X X X X X X X X

      13 MANASSEH X X X X X

      14 EPHRAIM X X X X X X

      15 BARAK X

      16 MACHIR X

      17 GILEAD X

      18 MEROZ X

      So there is gross difference.

      Regarding the steele, it is close to the time of Israel, it could be Jazreel as well. Because christian scholars give primacy to Israel they always jump to make bible correct than look at history. It simply means there were a group of people some habiru, some Canaanites all coalesced to form a nation later. At that time there was nothing to distinguish them from their neighbors culturally. Ba'al , El (Canaanite god), Yahuand his wife Asherah were the common gods.

      'About the year 1000 B.C. there was nothing distinctive about the Jews ethnically, linguistically, politically or economically.'

      N. Cantor (The Sacred Chain, p52)

      The first mention of Israel by iys neighbour is from 9th century, Moab Steele.

    • profile image

      BuddiNsense 2 years ago

      TRIBES of ISRAEL GEN 29:31 to 30:24 GEN 46:8-27 GEN 49:3-27 EXO 1:2-5 NUM 10:14-27 NUM 26:5-51 NUM 34:16-29, 35:1-8 DEU 33:6-24 JUDG 1:17-36 JUDG 5:14-23 1CHR 2:1-2 1CHR 6:54-80

      1 ASHER X X X X X X X X X X X X

      2 BENJAMIN X X X X X X X X X X X

      3 DAN X X X X X X X X X X X

      4 GAD X X X X X X X X X

      5 ISSACHAR X X X X X X X X X X X

      6 JOSEPH X X X X X X X X X X

      7 JUDAH X X X X X X X X X X X

      8 LEVI X X X X X X X X

      9 NAPHTALI X X X X X X X X X X X X

      10 REUBEN X X X X X X X X X X

      11 SIMEON X X X X X X X X X X

      12 ZEBULUN X X X X X X X X X X X X

      13 MANASSEH X X X X X

      14 EPHRAIM X X X X X X

      15 BARAK X

      16 MACHIR X

      17 GILEAD X

      18 MEROZ X

      So there is gross difference.

      Regarding the steele, it is close to the time of Israel, it could be Jazreel as well as. Because christian scholars give primacy to Israel they always jump to make bible correct that look at history.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Quick reply as the rest will have to wait until tomorrow

      There weren't ten tribes but twelve (not including the levites who didn't get a share as they were the priests.

      Joseph's descendants got split into two tribes (Ephraim and Manassah) though there are times when the writers simply use the name "Joseph" for Ephraim.

      You're probably right about non israelites joining Israel (Caleb son of Jepunnah was a Kenite who attached himself to Judah)

      The tribes did loosen their ties after Joshua and his generation passed away (to the point of civil war) but the Mernepteh Stele makes it plain it was Israel paying tribute.

      By the way you were right about the book of Judges but the Bible shows them as a collection of stories from the time when Israel had settled the land but not come together as a nation. The last Judge was Samuel.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Sorry I was not specific, when I said there was no people I only meant people as a nation. We already said it was inhabited but not by nations like its neighbors.

      It was indeed a wilderness, (doesn't mean forest) and was less fertile compared to its neighbors like Mittani or Hatti and was nearly out of state control for people including Canaanites to run off.

      And that along with 'outcasts' and all taken directly from books on ancient middle east which say that though it was the terms used by their enemies it was not simply rhetoric. And it was true, as I already mentioned this was not a single group of people, nor a tribe. The name was used by various people to denote various others. As I already said, Idrimi was a Habiru king, but that nation was far north of Israel to become Israel later.

      Regarding the Mernepteh steele, not only it the term itself is in contention, we are not yet sure whom it was addressed, a nation or a few groups.

      So there were some indigenous people some Run away Canaanites and other groups over centuries conglomerated into a nation, Israel. Judah was not even a nation then for it to rule the bigger Israel. Judah came into prominence only after the destruction of Israel.

      Add to that the bible itself do not know who the ten tribes are. [History of Ancient Israel and Judah

      by J.Maxwell Miller and John H. Hayes, A History of the Ancient Near East: ca. 3000-323 BC 3rd ed

      by Marc Van De Mieroop ]

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      By the way I would look up the information coming out of Khirbet Al Faynan (southern Jordan) and the digs run by UCSD since the year 2005.

      They've worked on the copper mine and fortress (both dated 10th to 12th century BC) . Their conclusion was that there was definatley 'Kingdoms' at the time that supports the "Biblical Maximalist" (those who believe the Bible largely true!) Rather than the "Minimalist" though they aren't sure if the mine (the largest in the southern Levant) was in Israelite or Edomite hands.

      Guess that shoots the "No kingdom before Omri" down now!

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      You're right about the name being Mittani. Its not something that has been explained yet

      As for the region being a desolate (you used the phrase 'less fertile, similar to a wilderness' ) the region later known as Judah could be described that way, but even there we see cities (check out the digs at Hebron and Bethlehem).

      As for the rest, well it's complete BS! The oldest wine cellars ever found are in Galilee (dated 1,500 BC) Hazor was known to be destroyed around then as was Jericho (Dame Kathleen Kenyon claimed she could find no evidence of Jericho from 1,400 BC to around 700 BC the destruction was so complete)

      The Mernepteh stele refutes the idea that Israel wasn't recognized!

      As for them being called 'outcasts, thieves and the like' lets remember it's their enemies talking. Have you ever heard an enemy say what a great person you are?

      Look at the way the West talks about its enemies "Axis of evil" or "insane nuclear hungry child" etc.

      So sorry, but what you said in those areas is false and you need to go back and check the information.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Tushratta was a Mittani king.

      the one I was talking about was Rib-Adda king of Byblos. Those habiru are not the precursors of Israel for as I already said Idrimi was a habiru king of Alalakh both north of Israel.

      The region of Israel was less fertile and similar to wilderness,to place where outcasts ran away. Habiru is outcast,vagabond, robber spread over a larger area than Israel and Judah combined, even extending to Hati.

      And regarding Judges, you yourself can read it and see how ridiculous the story of Samson is....those stories are a collection of stories from various times to give the nation a uniformity.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      The time of Judges, when there was no people. There was no leadership, no group so to speak. Israel was formed by Omri, naturally there should be populace before that.

      Regarding the letters, I think you are correct but there was another... I didn't get time to check. I will, and reply.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      I just checked the details and the letters concerned are the "Letters from Tushratta to the Egyptian Pharaoh, the first one was Amenhotep lll and the last letter was sent (archaeologists think) around the first year of Tutenkhamen.

      Tushratta was king of " Uru shalem" the old Babylonian name for Jerusalem. In the letters he warns the Pharaoh of the 'Habiru' who are crossing from the East of the Jordan and slowly closing in.

      He does also talk about his enemies the Jebusites closing in on him but primarily he talks of the 'Habiru'

      The letters are real and they support the Bible story!

      Lawrence

      By the way Raamses passed through the land in the time of the Judges, when there was no central leadership, much of tge nation had reverted to polytheism and there was general chaos.

      Yes there were times when the judges called the nation back to God but mostly it was a sad time of weakness

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Shame on me I can't remember the letters or the names, it is in the book by Marc Van De Mieroop and some others. The letters are all addressed to The Egyptian Pharaoh from that region from petty kings (chieftains to be accurate) calling for help against each other and calling each other 'habiru', it is a very broad term, derogatory, so we cannot form a definite conclusion.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      I'll accept that. But why were they fortifying right at the time the 'Habiru' were making their move?

      I remember reading a book from the British Museum that pointed out the list of cities conquered by the 'Habiru' is identical to the list found at the end of Joshua of cities taken by Israel.

      If the lists are identical then can they be the same people?

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Yes, but Israel didn't get a mention and it also tells that that area was controlled by Egypt.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Not really as I said Egypt had vassal states there, they also had garrisons (we are discovering) on "The way of Horus" the military route from NW Sinai along the coast (eleven of them recorded in the Temple of Akhenaten in Karnak, we've found five so far!)

      It appears it was the coastal areas that were fortified along a 220 mile stretch.

      Look up "The way of Horus"

      I'll look at the rest later

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      That contradicts what you said though, the land of 'Israel' belonged to Egyptians. Yes it was a tie, but no where Ramses say anything about Israel. There was nothing to mention about Israel. Ramses just passed through the land to fight.

      If Jesus had restored the limbs they certainly would have publicized it, make him way better than any other faith healers.

      That is why I said almost eradicated, it is eradicated in developed world.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      The Battle of Kadesh took place in Northern Syria! Near to ancient Carcemesh and it took place a hundred years later.

      Raamses said it was an Egyptian success, Mutawalli said it was a different story and most likely a stalemate (though the Hittites came off best)

      I didn't say that healing Leprosy means limbs grow back, I said maybe Jesus would have restored the limbs! Remember he is God and created the universe so restoring limbs would be no problem!

      By the way, Leprosy in the west may be almost eradicated but in the developing world its still pretty prevalent.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Battle of Kadesh,

      The Battle of Kadesh took place between the forces of the Egyptian Empire under Ramesses II and the Hittite Empire under Muwatalli II (Sorry I mistakenly said Suppiluliuma).

      Healing leprosy doesn't mean amutated limb grow back, but it stops the disease process and kills the bacteria, Leprosy is almost eradictated.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      The Hittites were in the Northern Levant. As far as I'm aware they never got even within 200 miles of Sinai.

      Egypt had a chain of kingdoms in the North to protect their interests in Canaan! This is too far south and is seemingly protecting Egypts coastal ports from the East! (not the North).

      You are right the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt, archaeologists think they came originalky from Canaan and were there the same time as Jacob and Joseph were in Egypt (it is thought that the Egyptians saw the Israelites as potential allies of future Hyksos invasions, hence the hardships created)

      If I was you I'd look up "Mid Bronze age NW Sinai" on google and the info will come up.

      Lawrence

      By the way Leprosy is a bacteria that attacks the nervous system resulting in loss of feeling and often loss of extremities and eventually limbs! We don't know how the people knew the lepers were healed, could it be extremities were grown back? Just an idea :)

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Egypt in its history was at war with Hittites and Assyria and almost all the kingdoms that was there, so naturally they will think about a wall. Think about it, Hittities (Suppiluliuma) were mighty kings, and they were constantly mentioned in Egyptian records and was at war, what does it matter to them about the puny little Israel? Ramses fought Hittite some where around Israel/Syria.

      The borders always chnage depending on the strength of Egpyt and its enemies.

      Two midwives can't cater to such a large population. And the population of Egypt in 1300BC would be hardly be 3 million.

      Hyskos were expelled from Egypt and they do not fit the Israel of bible.

      Jesus healed 'lepers' but not a leper without limb.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Say yes.

      Thats true, I never really thought of that, and Jesus frequently healed lepers.

      Thank you

      Lawrence

    • Say Yes To Life profile image

      Yoleen Lucas 2 years ago from Big Island of Hawaii

      About there being no amputees in those days - Leprosy ate away at people's extremities, so there would have been some, since Leprosy sufferers would not have bled to death.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      I didn't really finish what I was saying when my phone battery ran out so here goes

      Sinai has had populations since the early Bronze age due to the fact there were copper and tin mines in the region. The North West part of it was more fertile than it is today with a now defunct tributary of the Nile running through it.

      During the 1960's both the Soviets and Americans kept the area under satellite recce for their various allies.

      Now that there is peace the satellite images have been de-classified and using them alongside modern technology/archaeology they have been able to work out where to look for archaeological sites, some were known but not the Mid to late Bronze age sites.

      They discovered that the region was abuzz with activity (mining, agriculture and building) that at first was pretty cosmopolitan but after the overthrow of the Hyksos (around 1,500 BC) things seem to change and Egypt behaves more like an occupying force.

      This region was on the border with Egypt (as the Bible says it was) and was effectively a frontier!

      The Bible says that God led the people south, away from the Egyptian forces, I take that as heading towards Nuweiba where there is a sunken ridge and away from the danger.

      The region is earthquake prone and the ridgemay have collapsed in a quake since the time (or even at the time!) There are those who claim to have found evidence of pharoahs Army there but personally I'm not convinced!.

      As for only two midwives for the 1.5 million (based on the figure of fighring men in the Book of Numbers, 603,000 men, each man having a wife and child gives 1.5 million) maybe they were just tge chief midwives?

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      As for there being no evidence of the Israelites in Egypt or the Exodus, well we've been looking in the wrong area for the Exodus.

      All the ancient writers put 'Sinai' not in the modern place but in Arabia! Even as late as the 1930's some scholars said Arabia as the Mountains there are Volcanic!

      As for Goshen, you'd be right 30 years ago but modern Archaeology and military satellite photos recently de-classified have shown that Goshen was probably the NW corner of what we now know as Sinai that tge Egyptians started to fortify around 1,300 BC to protect their borders (they were the superpower! Why would they need to?) just prior to the 'HABIRU' showing up in Canaan (were they protecting themselves against an enemy they'd already come off second best years before?)

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      yes got to be a lot many people with amputated limbs because that was a time of wars. The raising of dead in the synoptic gospels is a reworking of Elijah and in John is an exaggerated tale of the 'rich man and Lazarus' in synoptic ones.

      In OT there is a messiah, dying and rising heavenly priest which is the same one in Paul which got more elaborated. Mark gave it an earthly existence, for that he copied plots from OT and Homer. If there really was a living Jesus there would have been no need to copy plots. Judaism as is seen today is formed very late, a reaction to Christianity. Judaism simply means religion of the people of Yehudah/Judah. It started to get uniformity only be Babylonian captivity and fully formed only after Jesus, after the work of Rabbis like Maimonides.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      Yep. You got that right. The majority of scholars don't agree with each other on these kind of things. As one historian pointed out that the way they make a name for themselves is to disagree with the 'authority' but they do agree about the 'being authoritative'.

      The story of Judas' death is written by Luke (Acts of the Apostles) and you are right about no amputees probably because there would be VERY FEW around. The standard of medical care was 'rudimentary' at best and people were most likely to die from the operation! He is recorded as raising people from the dead!

      As for Christianity starting as a 'Jewish sect' and as for looking at the books of the OT to see the 'evolution' of Jesus you'd see it as the writers looking to the OT for inspiration where I would say they looked back to see fulfilment :)

      The split with Judaism didn't fully happen until AD 90 but it started just after the NT was written (AD 70 ish).

      As for the other stuff I'll get back to you later.

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      1.5 million left Egypt and Egypt survived? And they didn't leave any evidence? 1.5 million just need two midwives?

      We said Abram is a tribe not a person. Israel became a nation only by 1000BC, so that tribe cannot be in 2100BC may be they coalesced as a group by 1300BC or even later to form a nation in two to three centuaries.

      The 'tribes' is alter fiction even the bible do not agree on the name of the tribes. Israel was the nation Judah was a later product, but was Lucky to survive and it was Judeans who got to write the book.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Most scholars who vouch for historical Jesus do not agree with each other and each as easily undermine the other. None of the books are eyewitness, tradition is that Mark was a companion of Peter and we got that information from Papias who said Judas bloated and died (even Eusebias didn't take him seriously). If it was an eyewitness account there would have been no need for copying Homer for the plots. As I said if we look at the newest books of OT, Paul and Mark we can see the gradual evolution of Jesus, it is just a Jewish sect.

      Jesus never healed an amputtee and all the healing stories are stories similar to any other faith healer of any time. There are always willing to say this or that saint/wizard/Guru/teacher healed them.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      By the way the first books of the New Testament written were actually Paul's letters (Galatians is thought to be the first around AD 50).

      Most modern scholars believe that Mark was the first Gospel written but the ancient writers (pretty much anyone writing before 1800) disagree and say it was Matthew who wrote in Aramaic around 50 AD (there is good evidence for it and reading my hub "The Gospels, can we trust them?" Gives a good picture of the evidence for them.)

      By the way 95% of modern scholars accept the gospels as authentic eye witness accounts, the only one they have reservations about is John's gospel that some say was probably written by a disciple of John.

      As for your comment about Jesus making claims about equality with God making him a charlatan, to the Jewish authorities that would have been fine but it was much worse than that! It was Blasphemous and punishable by death, only problem was all the people he'd healed! (I know you don't accept the stories but if you're going to listen to the experts then you need to take what they say into account) hence the reason for the Crucifixion!

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      We're running ahead a bit there. We agreed that before Abram was called he was probably a polytheist, but that all changed when he was called.

      Between the time Abram arrived in Canaan and the conquest of the Land was at least 700 years (Abram is dated around 2,100 BC). They arrived as an extended family probably about two or three hundred strong. First Lot took some of the Family, then Ishmael, then Keyurah's children, then Esau took some from Isaac and finally Jacob was left with about 70 who went down to Egypt.

      All that took about three hundred years! They were just over four hundred years in Egypt by which time they'd grown to about 1.5 million (an annual growth rate of just under 5% and easily achievable)

      I know there are problems with the Exodus but that doesn't mean it didn't happen!

      The Habiru are a group of tribes and to be honest the way the Israelites marched (13 seperate camps in the form of a "+") it could have looked like seperate tribes, but under one leader!

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      It is the same bible that attests that Yahweh is the son of El and when we look at other texts we find the original from which bible is copied.

      We also agreed that Israel formed from a group of outcasts and hence Abram is simply the name of a tribe and as they were a group without a history it is explainable that they copy and made a history for themselves to cohere as a nation.

      Claiming equality with god won't make anyone god but a charlatan. The first book, Mark, from which all other gospels are copied mostly uses the son of man not god. If we look into the newest books of OT we can find a Messiah, Paul's messiah who die and rise in heaven. We should also consider that Paul was before Mark and all in all, Mark is a fabrication and Jesus is just a myth.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      We are agreed that before everything began the group of whom Abram was leader (I know the Bible talks only of Abram but he was wealthy and prpbably the leader of an extended family) were polytheists.

      But all that changed when Elohim spoke! The fact that similar names are used in the accounts shouldn't surprise the observant reader, but in many ways that's where the similarities end!

      "Hear oh Israel, the LORD Elohim is one"

      Note the phrase doesn't say 'are' as that would indicate multiple deities but the singular means only one!

      The structure of the Hebrew doesn't allow for multiples!

      The words may have been borrowed from an older language but the meaning wasn't as El, Elohim and YHWH are different names for the same in Hebrew, they each describe different parts of the character of God!

      As for Jesus being the 'Son of God' it's something that is actually attested in the New Testament (Gospel of John) that Jesus was asked by the pharisees if he was 'God' thats why they wanted him dead! Because he claimed equality with God.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      YHWH is another name for the ame, only after Israel became monotheistic. Enki is also called, Ea, which became Yah and Yahweh.

      Jesus is son of god because you want to consider him god to without compromising the idea that god is one, hence the trinity a nonsense.

      That was a later invention by (?)John. Jesus is actually a heavenly priest who died in heaven, Mark made him earthly by copying the plots of OT and Homer.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Yhwh is another name for the same! There is no 'son of' in the sense you mention! We only use the phrase "Son of God" for Jesus simply because we don't fully understand the relationships within the trinity!

      That Christ (and the Holy Spirit) were pre-existent with the Father, co equal with the Father yet choose to be subservient to the Father.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Ugaritic and Phoenician. Sumerians and Semets lived in the same region and interacted and ruled each other.

      According to Atrahasis, Enki/Ea is the son of Enlil, just like Yahweh is the son of El.

      En is title and lil (el, allah all same) -wind or ghost and is translated as Lord air, he was the third component together with An and Enki in later Sumerian myths. But now it is thought that 'il is the original, semetic loaned to Sumerian as Sumerians are late comers, only they managed to get power before Akkadians. As the rulers change name and prominence of god also changes.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Buddinsense

      We were talking earlier about the names of God and the relation of El to Enlil and Enki.

      Actually I'm going to have to disagree some with you as I did some checking and while Abram didn't speak Hebrew (it wasn't around in his time) he did speak a Semitic language (either Babylonian or Assyrian depending on where 'Ur' is) and El is a semitic word but Enlil and Enki are from Sumerian which isn't semitic and has no known relatives!

      It may be that all three words stem from an earlier language (pre-Babel)

      'El' is related not to Sumerian but to Ugaritic as a semitic word and was always the supreme 'god' of whichever pantheon hence cannot be related to Enlil or Enki as they were lesser deities.

      Lawrence

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      .The jewish archaeologists disagree with you. They say it is Davids Palace not Solomons and the vase has Sauls sons name on it!

      David is no longer a mythical character but a real historical figure

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Solomon's's actually, but that belongs to different times and different people.

      Eshba'al Ben Beda, man of Ba'al son of Bada cannot be saul's son, as I already said an example of jumping to conclusion.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Actually they were Jewish.

      One claims to have found the foundations to King Davids palace.

      The other was a pottery vase re-constructed (found by Yusef Garfinkel, a Jewish archaeologist) that names "Esh ba-al) the name of Saul's son placed on the throne after the death of Saul (there was seven years of civil war) the name was apparently not used after this time so they think it may be the actual son.

      The inscription you mention is dated 150 years later.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Not king David, biblical archeologists being christians was always ready to jump to conclusions that supported bible. It was 'btdvd', that can meaning anything and even if we take the meaning to mean David, it is house of David which do not prove a historical David. Kings always claimed descendancy from mythical or legendary predecessors. Say Pandu was a legendary King in India and many later kings claimed descendancy from him, Hapsburg said they are the descendants of Roman emperors.

      Abraham is a myth, at the most "he" is a tribe. Wed have already seen that few 'habiru' that were local to Cannan coalesced to form Israel.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Sorry, got distracted before. Josephus tells us that Abram's father Terah was a polytheist and Abram worked in his father's shop making the idols but one day they walked in and the mallet was in the hands of the main idol.

      Abram smashed the idols and then had to flee for his life as the citizens wanted revenge (Josephus Antiquities).

      Its possible that Abram himself was a polytheist right up to the point when God (Elohim) said "Abram, get off your butt. I'll show you where you are to go." From that point on he was a monotheist!

      But that doesn't mean the Hebrews stayed monotheists as they frequently lapsed into polytheism and thats what the prophets spoke out so much against.

      Omri may have been thought to be the first King for a while (by some Archaeologists) but recently Archaeologists have identified King David and possibly even Saul in pottery and inscriptions. During David and Solomons time Israel was monotheistic (Solomon began to change that and re-introduced polytheism).

      Israel (after the split) soon went back to polytheism despite calls from the prophets to stay true to God (Elohim).

      Hope that helps

      Lawrence

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Yep. I agree about Allah and El being the same. As for the names being related to Enlil and Enki I just looked the names up on Google and its interesting.

      The two names are the names of the supreme deities in the Sumerian pantheon so it would fit to some degree.

      Abram came from Ur. Its debatable if it was Woolleys Ur (I'm not sure) but his father was a polytheist and even Josephus has legends about Abram smashing the idols his father made.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Allah and El are the same, from the same root, "il".

      That two thoughts are attempts to get over the embarrassment. El is from Enlil and YHWH from Enki and as is evident from many books of bible, it was only later they merged and all the time sons of god means, god's son. Nothing to do with fallen angels or Seth, just like Enlil has many sons. Baal just like Yahweh is one son, and it is embarrassing for christians to say that their bible itself, the holy word of god, has such blatant contradiction,

      It is also evident from history and bible too that early Israel was polytheistic, the first historically attested king, the one who can be said to establish the nation of Israel, Omri, got only a passing mention and negative one too because he was polytheistic.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      I also wanted to add that in Arab and Hebrew culture its normal for names to have meaning and often a person will have more than one name as each carries a different meaning.

      In the Qur'an for example God has 99 names, each with a different meaning (but still only one God-Allah is their equivalent of El)

      Abram knew God by only one name "THE LORD ALMIGHTY" (literally Yhwh Adonai) where Hagar knew him as "THE LORD WHO SEES ME" (literally Yhwh Rohoi) but they were the same God.

      You mentioned "son of god" and in Genesis 6 verse 1 it says "the sons of god saw that the daughters of men were beautiful" so basically they slept with them and children were born to them.

      There are two schools of thought here. One is that it was the sons of Seth marrying the daughters of Cain (descendants of both) but another thought is "Binnai Elohim" is literally fallen Angels (demons) that corrupted the genetics of the human race (remember the ancient Greek myths of "Demigods" beings that were half man half god?).

      Hence it was "sons of god" in that God created them (God created Satan but he became proud and that caused his fall) who were the cause of the flood.

      Lawrence

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      Actually 99% of Christians are blissfully unaware of the meaning of the names or even that those names exist!

      El is the singular. It literally means "Ever living and self existant" (needs nothing or no one to exist!)

      Elohim is the plural and (Christians hate me for saying this...even the female ones) its FEMININE in form!

      A few weeks ago I tried to use this to show that while God is 'one' he is both male and female (it did not go down well!).

      After that I checked my "Vines Expository dictionary of Biblical words" (Inter varsity press) that said "While Elohim is plural, when it appears with a masculine singular pronoun it always takes the singular masculine form (No exceptions)"

      Thus the name may be plural but is always used as a singular

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      That was the original, Christians do not want that to appear in their bible, do they?

      Standard books of history and archeology still list the original.(eg:

      A History of Ancient Israel and Judah By J Maxwell Miller , John H Hayes)

      When the Most high (Elohim){Elohim is the plural of El] divided "their" inheritance

      For the LORDS (Yahweh) portion is his people

      The 'their' is his sons, and as his portion Yahweh got israel.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      The translation you are using is 'interesting'

      The New king James reads different

      "When the Most high (Elohim) divided their inheritance among the nations.

      He seperated the sons of Adam, he set the boundaries of the peoples.

      According to the number of the children of Israel.

      For the LORDS (Yahweh) portion is his people, Jacob is the place of his inheritance

      Clearly the two names refer to the same being that seperated a nation out to work with to bring salvation through them.

      The rest I'll look at tomorrow as uts late here.

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Yes Natufians lived that before, they probably invented agriculture because by late Natufian we find some domesticated plants. It was immediately followed by pre-pottery neolithic in nearby areas. The Natufian time is also the time it is supposed that people crossed into America but Australians and Andamanees were there for 60000 years.

      This is a good book, but very dry (I found),

      "The Neolithic Revolution in the Near East: Transforming the Human Landscape"

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam,

      he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods.

      Yahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel] his allotted inheritance. (Deut. 32:8–9)

      [Elohim] stands in the assembly of El; in the midst of the gods he renders judgment (Ps. 82:1).

      For who in the skies can compare to [Jehovah]? Who is like [Jehovah] among the [sons of God], a God who is honored [in the great assembly of the holy ones], and more awesome than all who surround him? (Ps. 89:6–7)

      Enlil is El and Enki became Yahweh. Jews were initially polytheists, then became henotheists and then monotheists. Only after they became monotheists, or only after Yahweh a war god became more prominent it became interchangeable.

      My question is why did god kill all the animals? OK, humans were guilty, but animals were not. It is even ridiculous to say animals are guilty because they cannot differentiate or think like we humans. SO why did god kill all those innocent animals?

      Actually killing(evil) is what satan's business, so whoever kill is satan. Also according to the book of Job, satan is a servant of god. God sons in bible is god's son, not satan. So god's son behaved like today's rich kids and god killed humans without punishing them, no satan is involved.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      I've been doing a bit of checking about the Natufian culture.

      It seems the Natufian culture settled the Levant around 11,000 to 13,000 years ago.

      They were a sedentary culture (pre-agricultural) that settled the area at the end of the pleostone period right at the end of the Ice age (I think I said earlier that the flood was followed by an ice age when the land bridges were still there and the people crossed to America about then).

      I'll keep looking into the other stuff

      Lawrence

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Yhwh is the name for God. The Hebrews had a number of names for God that they used at times.

      The names are such that scholars have suggested four sources for the first five books of the Bible

      J. Yahweh (Genesis chapter 2)

      E. Elohim (Genesis chapter 1)

      D. Deuteronomy

      P. Priestly documents (as in the book of Leviticus)

      No one as far as I am aware has said that Yahweh was the son of Elohim as the two words are interchangeable.

      Actually the name "Yahweh" was considered so holy that the vowel sounds (in Hebrew and Arabic each letter had three possible vowel sounds that were written) were never written even in medieval times consequently today we have no real idea how it was said.

      Your analogy sounded amusing but it raised some interesting points.

      Man was given dominion over creation, he was there to tend and care for it, so when he rebelled and fell the rest of creation was tainted with him.

      God's plan wasn't for the animal kingdom to be destroyed! He planned for it to be saved hence the Ark!

      By the way Gods plan wasn't for two of each kind but some 'clean animals' were to have seven pairs (whether that actually happened is up for debate as it was in the plan but the Bible just says "they went in two by two")

      I find it interesting you attribute the flood to Satan as it was to thwart what Satan had done, to put right the damage he'd done!

      Those are my thoughts anyway.

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Bible also tell as that Yahweh is a son of god, so he is satan?

      And even bible make it clear that females have not much of say when it comes to sex, so with human consent is anachronistic.

      He judge? Who decided the punishment? What crime did the animals do? It is more like a robber pointing a gun at you giving you a choice, so if he shoots can you be blamed?

      And he didn't want, well, that is what we expect from satan, aren't we?

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      I don't think he wanted to! The problem is he's also a judge and as much as he loves his creation he has to deal with disobedience and rebellion especially when it was corrupting the rest of creation.

      One strange thing that was going on was "the sons of God" (spirit beings) were coupling with the daughters of men and creating "super beings" some see this as genetic experimenting (by satan but with mans consent) that God had to get rid of what was corrupted and only Noah's family were uncorrupted. (Read Genesis 6)

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Something is wrong with my account, the comments I submit I cannot see nor it come up for editing.

      Then why god bothered with the flood, if he just wanted to kill some humans he could have just give them a heart attack or even a painless death and could spare the animals.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      Asking how the animals got from where the Ark came to rest to places like Australia and America the answer is that if the flood happened 10,000 years ago then it would account for the ice age thought to have occured then when there were land bridges at least to Britain and America (not sure about Australia at this point) but if there was a land bridge then that would account for it.

      With regards to carbon dating it is used to help with dating artifacts byt is cobsidered to have too many variables to be a good "first indicator" so is always used with other methods. I haven't checked the other info out yet but will get back to you when I have.

      By the way I want to say thanks for the questions as its making me think what I do believe!

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      Just noticed some of the comments seem to be "double ups so I removed them (hope you don't mind)

      The hibernating is speculation as we just don't know at this stage (I'm not sure if anyone has looked into other theories). Basically if God was able to create the earth and all its animals then he should be able to put some of them to sleep! (Probably a bit too simplistic for the skeptic :) )

      As for the rest I'll try and answer later.

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      That also do not explain how animals got to America and Australia, how did they swim all those distance after not eating for all those months?

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Even hibernating animals need energy, you know how much weight a hibernating polar bear looses?

      A flesh will decay in a few days, will not remain for six months.

      That will be a very fast evolution, but then how do we explain the wide spread presence of such animals before 10000 BC, we have the skeletons of Lion, cheetah, leopard....? And these not diversification within species, these is macr-evolution, it contain two subfamilies. And no dog didn't evolve into horse.

      Not carbon dating alone and carbon dating has no window of error of 5000 at 13000 but may be at 50000.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      True, not all animals can hibernate. There's still no concrete argument saying "it was done this way" but most of the ancient Rabbis say the God somehow put the animals to sleep once on the Ark. Josephus (AD 70) The Dead sea scrolls (100 BC) and the book of Enoch (250-300 BC) all seem to say the God put the animals to sleep but thats pure conjecture :)

      Another way would be the that with so much drowned flesh feeding the carnivores would be no problem as they took carcasses from the water as needed (okay thats my idea and probably none too bright!)

      With the animals you'd have to remember that the ones on the ark may not be the ones we know of today!

      What I mean is (for example) today there are over 26 species of cat including the Lion, Leopard, Cheetah, Common moggie and Bobcat but the one on the Ark wasn't any of those but the 'progenitor' of all modern species of cat.

      I have to explain that creationists believe in micro evolution (diversification within a species) but don't accept macro evolution (the idea that the ancestor of the dog is also the ancestor of the horse!) hence the idea of the progenitor being on the Ark instead of the midern species is acceptable to us.

      As for the dating of Natufian at 13,000 BC I haven't come across it before so I'll have to check it but how was it dated?

      Was it using carbon dating with its problems? At that age carbon dating has a window of about five thousand years either side!

      Not sure if I covered everything but let me know.

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Not all animals can hibernate and a vessel half the size of titanic may hold 70000 animals, especially small ones but not their food for a year. A lion alone will eat 30 kg food a day. And there is only one window for the whole boat how did they take out the excreta?

      After the flood what did carnivores eat?

      A few miles wide, did the animals swim? To Australia, why only marsupials went?

      We do not know, but we know the ancient flood myth is true Even though it defy everything we know, even though that makes god, satan?

      9000 years, no Natufian was 13000 - 9000BC, followed by PPNA and PPNB Australia people were there from 40 to 60000BC.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      You're right about the animals. The Genesis account makes the point that all animal life was extinguished! As for the size of the Ark I suggest you take a look at the article from the "Telegraph" and remember it was physicists doing the calculations (the telegraph is Britains equivalent of the Washington lost or LA Times) They calculated it haf the bouyancy for 70,000 animals and that at the time there were maybe 30,000 species around. As for getting the feed for all the animals I'll admit thats an area we don't know and one theory is the animals hibernated.

      As for the parasites, I'm glad it wasn't me!! We just don't know those things.

      Lawrence

      As for getting to America the Barents strait is only a few miles across! One theory is the flood is when the tectonic plates fractured.

      As for settlements tge oldest ones still inhabited date back about 9,000 years ( as far as I am aware)

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      More over how such a small boat hold all animals in pairs and the food for a year? There are some parasites that cannot live outside human body, who carried them?

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      If it was global, then nothing would remain now except a few water animals, especially as it was only 7 -10000 years ago. And it it was only 7 - 10000 years, how did humans and these animals get to America and Australia? Why do we not find any break in settlements across the fertile crescent then? Why there are no flood layers?

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      I think that the flood was global. The accounts say it was and what I've read of the Hydraplate theory makes a lot of sense.

      As for the global flood you say that everything would die and apart from those in the boat everyone did but not before many years of warning and also a way out that was there all the time but no one chose to take it up.

      As for the flood I did say that I think it was about 7-10,000 years ago.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Yes I am saying that most probably it is the Shuruppak flood that is described in Atrahasis.

      I do not have to take into account the flood in North America because I do not think that flood was global, when I said it happened only in Shuruppak (local) I meant that. That flood story as passed through generations over centuries (the previous Ur flood may have helped) metamorphosed into a global flood. We humans do have a tendency to exaggerate. For the source of American flood story we have to look into America.

      I didn't say anything about the evolutionist claim, I do not even know why you bring it up. Even you yourself said that that flood may not be global. What I said is if a global flood occurred in the biblical scale almost nothing will survive. A winter may be survived by some, we see that we Humans can live on ice, but not in water. And I mean water animals too, as I think the salinity will be diluted to prevent the marine life and but won't be so diluted to help fresh water life. What remains will be a few animals that can live in estuaries.

      You still have not told me what characteristics are you looking for to identify the flood. At the least you should be able to say whether it was global or local. I did ask you, if we discovered a global flood 20000 or 1 million years ago, would it qualify?

      Will that 'evolutionist meteor winter' qualify?

      We have so many floods, but without specifying the flood we are looking for, we are searching the wrong thing.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      So let me get this straight. You are saying that the flood of the Atraharsis and Gilgamesh epics took place in the "Province" of Shurrupak around 3,000 BCE?

      That sounds good, but it doesn't take into account the other legends of the flood from all over the globe? For example the North American Indian or te Gaelic (Irish) or Masai all three of whom happened in their various parts of the world and all three claim it was a global event with only a handful of survivors (see part 1 for these stories)

      You claim it would extinguish all life on earth (therefore "can't be") yet have no problem accepting the evolutionist claims that meteorites crashing into the earth annhilated 98% of life on earth in a form of nuclear winter!! (The biggest thing to survive according to them was an insect!).

      By the way, I do accept that large meteorites have hit the earth, I just don't accept that it was three hundred million years ago. More like a few thousand years ago.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      There could never be global flood for it will kill every living thing in earth. A local flood make bible wrong with rainbow and all and make satan God..

      Some people worship the powerful(no matter what they do) like the rabbis in your example but some are willing to die for freedom and truth.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      No, no, no, that is not what I meant, the flood that gave rise to the myth of global flood occurred in Shuruppak is what I meant. The 'one who found life', Utnapishtim or Ziusudra, or 'exceedingly wise' Atra-hasis, was from Shuruppak and there really was a flood there and dynasties (that need to spun stories for legitimacy) emerged after that flood.

      YHWH is from Yah or yahu as in hallelu-yah was a Phoenician god, son of El(isra-el fame) as in bible.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Not according to the story of Atraharsis or the epic of Gilgamesh (the later Babylonian re-working of Atraharsis) they agree it was global just like Noah's account

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      According to the the bible Deuteronomy and Psalms, Yahweh is the son of the most high god. So he is not god but an imposter.

      "flood but to establish whether it could have happened"

      That is why I asked what flood you are looking for, Babylonian flood is easy, the one that occurred in Shuruppak somewhere near 3000BC at the end of Jemdet Nasr period, but it was a local flood.

      Jesus was was claimed but claims are just that claims.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Yhwh is the name given to God by the Hebrews. It's Jesus who is regarded as '"Son of God"

      The purpose of the hub wasn't to argue the rights and wrongs of the flood but to establish whether it could have happened. To be honest I don't have the answers.

      The best way I've heard it saud was in Aschwitz the rabbis got angry with God that he would allow all that.

      They out God on trial, witnesses were called, the jury sworn in and the trial began. God was found guilty and sentence passed. Excommunication! As soon as sentence was carried out they all put on their Yarmulke and went to pray. When they were asked why they simply said "Because he's God"

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      There is nothing wicked about any culture. And we humans judge and give capital punishment for a different reason, even we do not approve genocide that include children.

      So either we have to change the definition of god or we have to admit the biblical god is not god or bible is wrong. According to the bible Yahweh is the son of god and as it is he who caused the flood I don't think we'll have to change the definition so only the last two options.

      I don't know about any god in new testament.

      And I rechecked about habiru and i was right, they were wide spread and they had a kingdom under Idrumi near Anatolia. A small group in Cannan probably became Hebrew.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      The comment was part of what I was saying about the latest cooy of the Atraharsis story to be unearthed. Finkel first came across it in the 1980's But the guy walked out door and the the record was nearly lost.

      In 2009 the guy walked back in to the Museum with the copy that Finkel was asked to translate. The Museum dated the tablet to around 2,400 BC (a thousand years older than the next oldest copy)

      Finkel wrote about the tablet in his book "The flood before Noah" he argues that tge Noah account is as old as the Atraharsis account but underwent a re-vamp around 600 BC when the Hebrews were in Babylon and some would have worked translating the ancient Akkadian documents.

      Hope this helps

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      You have hit on one of the questions that theologians have been asking for centuries. How could a god who is supposed to be all good do something like the flood.

      Some have even argued that the god of the old testament isn't the God of the new.

      One thing to remember is that God may be a God of love but he's also a righteous judge and just like a judge at the end of a murder trial has to pass sentence sometimes so does (in this case did as we now have an advocate who takes what we deserve) so God passed sentence on a wicked culture.

      I realize its not what you want to hear but thats what it boils down to.

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Sorry for the repetition, something is wrong with my computer.

      Can you tell me a little more about 2009 tab, I remember reading something about getting the tablets from street but I can't place it where nor do I remember whether the flood tab was among it.

      What I said is that archeologists are not sure whether term translated as "Israel" is Israel (isirah his seed is no more)and whether they have any relation to habiru, whether it is a tribe or place.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Mernepth stele

      What I said is that archeologists are not sure whether term translated as "Israel" is Israel and whether they have any relation to habiru.

      Habiru: They were small bands, outlaws, mercenaries runaway slaves.... The name equate with bandits and we have mention of such people from Assyrian times though the word habiru is later. And I too think they are the ancestors of Hebrew, outlaws from Cannan. So they have no history other than that copied from neighbours.

      Yes my daughter is responsible and I will punish her but do not kill her. I punish her so that she studies from her experience which will help her later. I Never I'll drown her.

      GOD

      is sinless and one who murder is an evil being and by common consent satan. if someone caused a flood that killed humans, whatever be the reason, is evil, Satan.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      See my repky above as you sent this earlier. I presume sending it this time was by mistake.

      Blessings

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      The humans then had no technology to cause a flood let alone global warming.

      "Though 'biblical' archaeologists are quick to say it was Israel we still are not sure whether it is and what relation they have with the Habiru. "

      Should be read as Though 'biblical' archaeologists are quick to say it was Israel in the Mernepth stele we still are not sure whether it was and what relation they have with the Habiru. Sorry for that.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Oh and the Habiru conquered the same cities as the Hebrews at the same time, but we're still not sure they're the same people?

      I always say "if the cap fits"

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Buddinsense

      You and I clearly have been reading different sources regarding the Habiru as every scholarvI have read said they were a small band or group of 'bands' of a few thousands (hence Bible scholars challenge if it can be the Habiru).

      You still haven't answered the question abd are trying to shift the discussion! Actions have consequences. Yes God did send the flood vut it was only after many years (the Bible says centuries) of repeated warnings that if man doesn't change his ways God will have to act!

      Jesus himself said that when he comes back it will be "just as in the days of Noah, when people were getting on with their lives and ignoring his calls"

      Hope that helps

      Lawrence

      Actually its not the scholars say it on the Mernepteh stele, its the Pharaoh himself saying he recieved tribute from them. Now lets see, tgey're both in the land, they both live in the cities of that land but we're not sure they are the same people!! REALLY

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      The humans then had no technology to cause a flood let alone global warming.

      "Though 'biblical' archaeologists are quick to say it was Israel we still are not sure whether it is and what relation they have with the Habiru. "

      Should be read as Though 'biblical' archaeologists are quick to say it was Israel in the Mernepth stele we still are not sure whether it was and what relation they have with the Habiru. Sorry for that.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      So am I to suppose that you would kill your daughter? She is responsible for her actions but she is not responsible for you deciding to punish her. So what is it, did god send the flood or was it man causing rain? Even now technology has not developed enough to make rain like that.

      The debate I was telling you was regarding the steele, Habiru was present all over the Fertile Crescent and they were people without history. So if they are the Hebrew ancestors they simply copied the story from Mesopotamia the original site of flood stories. But even there you have to admit that it is a local flood and bible authors were mistaken just like the Sumerians who thought (and wrote it down)it is worldwide and attributed it to God. And it also means that the original God in bible is just one among the pantheon, Enki who got to Israel through the Phoenicians as El/Yah/Yahu? It also explain why bible states that Yahu/Yahweh is the son of God.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      You didn't actually answer my question. Who would be responsible?

      And no. If I ever planned that it would have happened years ago. But my Daughter does know that there are consequences to disobedience and they aren't usually pleasant!

      Actually the Biblical scholars are divided on the Habiru. The Archaeologists tend to favor them as an explanation but some Biblical scholars either tend to go for a more literal interpretation and some others are still living in the past and denying it ever took place! (Sorry but the Archaeological evidence is starting to mount up and it favors the idea it did!)

      You'd be right that Moses didn't lead the Habiru as according to the account he died just before they entered the land (Joshua led the tribes over).

      I was also pointing out that even I think that Moses and the children of Israel had access to records of earlier events. How those records were transmitted is up for discussion.

      As I mentioned in part 2 of these hubs there are 2 million clay tablets from Ancient Assyria, Babylon, Akkad and Sumer that we have (plus Ebla, Ugarit and many other places) but only about 3% have been translated (about 30,000) so we don't know what is in the other tablets. In fact the earliest tablet we have of the flood was literally brought in to the British Museum in 2009 'off the street' and is dated at 2,400 BC. The story it tells is closer to the Biblical flood than any other!

      As for global warming! Well man had many years of warning that something was going to happen, is he listening about global warming at the moment?

      When I get the chance to research it proper I'll be putting together a hub on the Hydraplate theory that argues for a flood on a global scale from a geological point of view.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      And also hope, for your kids sake, that you don't plan to kill them if they turn disobedient.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Though 'biblical' archaeologists are quick to say it was Israel we still are not sure whether it is and what relation they have with the Habiru. The habiru might be the ancestors of Israel but they are just like the medieval Cossacks of Russia, an assortment of people with no history. So if Habiru was ancestors there can't be a Moses a hundred years before them. Even if take 1500BC it is still 1500 years from the nearest flood of any consequence in Mesopotamia.

      Regarding the boat, you can compare the size with the Titanic(which is nearly twice the size), and add to the fact that Mesopotameans were not sea going people. The question is not whether it can float, question is whether it can float after all the cargo mentioned and needed.

      When you say man was the cause I hope you didn't mean that they brought out a global warming or did something to increase the rain in Anatolia?

      Who brought the flood? You are implying that it was god because of man's disobedience.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNisense

      I've put a link in to the Telegraph Newspaper that ran a story a few years ago about experiments done at the University of Leicester in the UK on the dimensions of the Ark and whether it was theoretically possible for it to float.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      Sorry I got you slightly wrong there. You're right about the date for Judah coming into existence as a kingdom.

      However the Amarna letters and the Mernepteh stele put the Hebrews (Habiru) already in Canaan and thriving by 1,300 BC (Amarna letters dated circa 1,350 BC Mernepteh stele circa 1,250 BC). The Amarna letters make it clear the Habiru were organized and the lists of cities conquered bears strikung resemblance to the list in Joshua! (Please don't try to tell me the Hebrews copied the letters, they were sent via couriers and were requests for Egyptian troops which weren't sent).

      My point about literacy was that the progenitors of the Hebrews could very well have written the stories down (even Moses was a relative newcomer having lived around 1,400 BC. He would have had access to earlier records kept by his forefathers and being educated in Pharaoah's palace he would have had the ability read and write :)

      As a side issue Jethro was a tribal leader and may have had copies of the same records Moses had (they were both descendants of Abraham, Moses through Isaac and Jethro through a younger half brother Midian)

      As for the boats sorry you are wrong there. Finkel explains in the book that the sheer size of the boat (which was proved correct and would have floated as it was primarily flax coated with pitch on a web like frame, strong, light and flexible) would have been 350 feet long, 50 feet wide and 10 storeys high. (Incidentally a full sized replica has been built using ancient technology and sails the Rhine in Holland and Germany) would have had no problem storing the provisions needed.

      As for your question. I don't believe God was the cause. The real culprit was man and his desire to do things "his way"

      Noah spent his life warning men there would be consequences but tge only time they listened was when the doors were sealed.

      God sent the flood bur everyone knew it was coming, they just chose not to listen!

      Final thing. If you tell your kids not to do something or there will be consequences but they keep on doing it, whose responsible when the consequences come?

      Let me know.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      That is not based on the presumption that early Hebrews were illiterate but based on the fact that Jewish religion originated in Judah a minor Kingdom and Israel came into existence only in 10th or 9th century BC while the earliest copy of Sumerian king list is from 2000BC and the first city Uruk was established in 4000BC. So it is irrelevant whether the ancient Hebrews were literate.

      About the boat, yes they were using boats but those boats couldn't carry provisions for a year.

      And no I am not asking what ancient men thought about the flood but what you think. Did god send a flood that killed humans?

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      As for 'Did God cause a flood?'

      Ancient man wasn't trying to answer how the flood happened. He was more interested in why it happened and I think that he would reply "No God didn't cause the flood, MAN DID!"

      In Atraharsis man was too noisy! In Genesis he was pretty dispicable! God sent the flood, but the cause was MAN!

      The other question to ask is was it preventable? I think he would answer "YES" if man had sorted himself out with God it would never have happened!

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      No we don't "know" that! That idea is based on the presumption that the Ancestors to the Hebrews were illiterate but there is no evidence for that.

      Writing has been with us since 3,500 BC (approx, but may be earlier) and there is no reason to believe the early Hebrews were illiterate!

      By the Irving Finkel in his book "The flood before Noah" points out that the Iraqi Marsh Arabs were using similar designed boats right up to 1950 and the Biblical Ark's dimensions make it stable.

      Lawrence

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      As we know that the bible is a later product, we need not look into bible? Even Atharhasis might be a better one, even though just like bible it is colored. And a boat in 7000 BC with capacities of holding much big animals should be an impossibility! And local floods all happened at different time. As you said Ur flood happened around 4000BC(3500BC), but there was no flood in near by Eridu that destroyed it. And we also know that there is a continuous settlement in China from 15000 BC and they invented pottery too.

      Now, what I am asking is, did God cause a flood? That has profound implications.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Coscious of the fact I didn't answer all the question.

      Proponents of the 'localized' flood theory argue that it would have been all of the world that the people in the area knew at the time. (They appeal to the fact that even in the Atraharsis and Noah accounts the lists of animals are localized and such things as the Elephant and Rhino aren't in the lists) but it would have been all the world the people at the time of the first telling of the story knew!

      I wanted to explore the idea it could also have been global, I think it was but I also realize I haven't "proved it". What the hub does do is show it did happen but whether a large scale localized flood or global is left up for debate!

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      BuddiNsense

      No I don't think anyone was lying about trade or about the flood. I think we don't have the complete picture!

      Each of the scenarios for a local flood depends on Archaelogical or Geological evidence as they happened well before man learned to write.

      Personally, I do think that Bishop Ussher was wrong in his dating using the lists in the Bible as I think we now realize the Bible doesn't give us the full picture!

      You'd be looking for an event that occured (based on what we know from geology and atchaeology) that took place at least 7,000 years ago and maybe as much as 10,000 years ago.

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Suppose it is a local flood, how local it should be, at what time?

      Why then did bible authors say worldwide(those survivors could obviously see that the surrounding regions are not flooded[there was trade between distant places from 10000BC if not before♣], were they lying?

      Suppose a worldwide flood occurred in 2000BC, can it be taken into account?

      Let us suppose that Jews originated in 2000 BC (though it happened only after 1100BC), Ur flood occurred in 4000BC,(let us suppose that as the one described) so bible becomes a copy of copy of copy of books. (We only have the Babylonian and Assyrian versions), so why should we look in the bible at all?

      Not that I am discounting your efforts in finding all these data but I am trying to find out what you try to achieve.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      You are right. If you look into this hub we look at the idea of a "local flood" with a number of sites proposed (they've all been proposed by scientists and historians.

      I've also included a link to Dr Walt Brown's hydroplate theory that us a working theory of how a global flood could have occured

    • BuddiNsense profile image

      Lightbearer 2 years ago

      Woolley 's findings were later modified by his assistant Mallowan, it was a local flood confined to Ur.

    • lawrence01 profile image
      Author

      Lawrence Hebb 2 years ago from Hamilton, New Zealand

      Joseph

      My pleasure