English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

12 answers

That's what I always figured. It's a little weird if you ask me

2007-02-11 18:20:13 · answer #1 · answered by Together 4 · 0 0

This is debatable.

I don't believe the flood covered the whole world, I think it covered only southern Iraq. (One particular detail in Genesis contradicts this point, so the jury is still out.)

So from my point of view, no it didn't kill everyone, and I don't believe the Bible actually says that it does.

Most people who believe that the flood covered the entire planet will say "yes", since that's the obvious answer.

The reason why I don't believe the flood covered the whole planet is because I think we've misunderstood the Hebrew word "ha-eretz". It can be translated "the world" or "the land" or "the earth" or "the ground". Our translations default to the first, but you have to read the verses in context, not just of the stories but the context of the time when they were written.

Between 2800 and 2000 BC., the Sumerians (who wrote the flood story) called their own country "The Land" as a proper noun, meaning that it was the land blessed by the gods and deserved reverence.

So if you replace "the world" with this title everywhere in Genesis 1-11, you get a very different reading, and it's much, much more believable, especially considering the fact that we have on record at least two floods that DID cover much of southern Iraq.

We may have also mistranslated the place "Mt. Ararat". The cultural arch rivals of the Sumerians were the Elamites who lived in "the mountains of Arata" and were mentioned countless times in their writings. In Hebrew, the mountains of Arata would be said, "Har Arata", nearly identical Ararat.

If a large boat were made in the typical Sumerian fashion (which happens to be nearly identical to the Genesis account), large enough to put all the animals known to the Sumerians (about 40 different species, give or take), and if it simply floated up as the water rose, the water would have pushed it out to sea as it receded and the ark would have landed in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains (southern coastline of Iran), and those were the Mountains of Arata.

2007-02-12 02:15:16 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No. According to Gnostic tradition, Noah was following the orders of Yaldaboath (YHWH). Noah's wife, Norea, begs Noah not to listen to Yaldaboath, but when he goes ahead and builds the ark, Norea burns it to the ground. Noah then begins construction on a second ark. Yaldaboath sends two angels to deal with Norea, who wind up trying to rape her. Norea calls out to the true God for help, who then sends two angels. After saving Norea from Yaldaboath's angels, she is instructed in the mysteries and told to go with others to a cave high in the mountain tops where they would be protected.

Some people are descendants of Noah, and some are descendants of the Gnostics who were saved in the cave.

2007-02-12 02:17:13 · answer #3 · answered by Wisdom in Faith 4 · 0 0

Yes

2007-02-12 01:57:03 · answer #4 · answered by Serena 5 · 1 0

Yes

2007-02-12 02:03:45 · answer #5 · answered by Archangel 4 · 2 0

we are still descendants of Adam and Eve because Noah came from them

2007-02-12 02:02:58 · answer #6 · answered by fpr 1 · 1 0

Yes

2007-02-12 02:03:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Of course we are all related but not to Noah or with Adam and Eve they never existed. We are all related to cockroaches we have a common ancestor with cockroaches. God Bless kisses Betty.

2007-02-12 02:16:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Good point.No, because spouses on his arc were the descendents of others.

2007-02-12 02:06:10 · answer #9 · answered by (A) 7 · 0 0

Absolutely. May God Bless U.

2007-02-12 02:03:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers