Persian Gulf, Its Sediments in Ice above Asia, '= Global Flood'

[tmaromine]

Hm; while that's quite a good philosophical way that I like of putting this part of the Bible, I think it's just another interpretation. If the the flood is symbolic for humans' emotional state, then what else in that book is not literal ? Calling it symbolic seems to be a way for Bible believers to not have to worry about contradictory evidence – did any believer ever have your same symbolic view of the flood before [the lack of] evidence said it didn't occur ? People were believing it long before disproof of it came along, so I'd really think that the time before it was disproven would have been how it was meant to be read.

 

And if that is a symbolic flood, it seems ludicrous to have to write about 'S'omeone other than humans controlling the dam. The book could be completely more enlightening if it bothered with describing all the hardships and immoralities of that time, and how they somehow worked to lose them and create a better future. But instead, it's either literal absurdity or arbitrary symbolry, no?

[HydrogenBond]

One has to place the writing of the great flood in the context of the times. Consider the situation of ancient cultures believing in all the gods of mythology. Obviously, they were not in touch with reality, but were living in the world of imagination. The story of the great flood was written even before that time, so one might logically expect their perception, in those earlier times, also used the imagination. If one could imagine and believe that Helios is riding his chariot near the sun, one can also imagine a great flood. Both would seem just as real, since they come from the same place within the human mind. The place was the unconscious mind. So the flood coming into the imagination from the unconscious mind would appear as real as Helios. It impact would be felt and its story would be told.

 

This is not to discount religious writings, but the story in Genesis is talking about the evolution of human nature from paradise, i.e., pre-human, to where humanity begins to differentiate and stabilize. If you take it literally, it does not hold water in terms of hard science. But symbolically it gives us insight into how the early human mind evolved and progressed. In that sense it give us some unique insight into early human nature.

 

Part of the problem is connected to the assumption that ancient people were us with old clothes. This was the childhood of humanity with adults having the minds of modern children, full of imagination. But because they had adult bodies their temper tantrums could get quite ugly. The great flood was sort of a time out, to help them evolve more self control.

[tmaromine]

Ok, I see what you're saying. Are you implying that humans have written stories with meaning, even though they didn't exactly know the meaning or only described it in metaphor ? If so, and if valid, that'd make theological history all the more interesting to me.

 

I find that interesting, and were I religious, that's the only 'Great Flood' I could ever accept and believe in. But I don't know how I'd make myself ignore the deity part. Great flood stories have existed from before the Bible's time though, so whatever story the Bible's comes from could still be a civilisation around some river or lake or coast that's wiped out by water, but the any few survivors wrote about a hero to revive their culture and life, no? Could've been influenced by a natural event, with the hero part imaginary. To me, it just seems that one or a few humans writing about a global-felt flood of time out and thinking and mental evolving is too unlikely. But, it could still be a small civilisation that knows no other, and a mental flood occurred with them...

[goku]

yes indeed, the whole earth was covered with water.

 

the answers are out there, but the ignorant know not what to call the evidence.

the most recent i've heard is bottle neck, refurring to DNA studies in humans.

[REASON]

yes indeed, the whole earth was covered with water.

 

the answers are out there, but the ignorant know not what to call the evidence.

 

Boy, you sound pretty sure of yourself. Where did you get that idea? :shrug:

 

Maybe since I'm among the ignorant, you'd be willing to tell me what to call the evidence. :)

 

In Missouri, where I'm at, the elevation is around 900 feet above sea level. Denver, at the base of the Rocky Mountains, is at 5,280 feet, which is a mile above sea level. That's a whole hell of a lot of additional water just to flood Denver. It's not anywhere near the highest point on land. Where did all that extra water go?

[modest]

yes indeed, the whole earth was covered with water.

 

This is true.

 

answers are out there, but the ignorant know not what to call the evidence.

 

also true. The ignorant are sometimes very good at ignoring evidence.

 

the most recent i've heard is bottle neck, refurring to DNA studies in humans.

 

Not true. The last time the earth was entirely covered with water was billions of years ago. You may not know this, but humans weren't around then.

 

-modest