Noah's Time

[Kenneth]

My knowledge of this subject you could write on a postage stamp, so here's a few question to boggle the mind with.

How big was the world of mankind in Noah's time?

How many died as a result of not listening?

How did Noah preach?

How many drown in the flood?

Considering they lived hundreds of years and were far nearer perfection, how far were they in terms mathematics, literature, the Arts and technological advancement?

<span style="color:#0000ff">"The important thing is not to stop questioning."</span>[/i][/b]

Albert Einstein

</span>

[Shibboleth]

I personally think they were an advanced society. Not as far advanced as we are today (obviously), but they probably would have achieved our level of advancement quicker if they had survived. My reasoning is on a heavy angelic influence. These angels that came to earth (now demons) had vast knowledge and most likely used that knowledge here on earth.

Regards,

Shibboleth

[Berean]

I personally think they were an advanced society. Not as far advanced as we are today (obviously), but they probably would have achieved our level of advancement quicker if they had survived. My reasoning is on a heavy angelic influence. These angels that came to earth (now demons) had vast knowledge and most likely used that knowledge here on earth.[/b]
I second that. It is in fact also a thought that is recounted in the Book of Enoch, which Jude might have cited when he wrote out Enoch&#39;s prophecy. Now I by no means wish to endorse that Book of Enoch, but the general idea of angels teaching man many things would not be out of line with reality.

[Old Seeker]

In Hebrews it says of Noah:



(Hebrews 11:7) By faith Noah, after being given divine warning of things not yet beheld, showed godly fear and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; and through this [faith] he condemned the world, and he became an heir of the righteousness that is according to faith.



Isn’t it at least a little bit interesting that it does not say, “through his preaching he condemned the world”?



It is only in Peter that any reference to preaching is made:



(2 Peter 2:5) and he did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people;



I don’t know what in what sense Noah being a ‘preacher of righteous’ should be taken. Was he a ‘preacher’ by means of his conduct? Or did Noah take on a personal mission (since he was given no command to do so) to warn people about the end coming?



Just my two cents worth.



Love and peace



OS

[Nambo]

Considering they lived hundreds of years and were far nearer perfection, how far were they in terms mathematics, literature, the Arts and technological advancement?

Kenneth
</span>
</span>[/b]

Well considering a lot of our really deep knowledge comes from questionable sources.

The world of that time was full of fallen angels who would have knowledge to pass on to thier offspring far in excess of ours. Weither they did or not?
But a lot of kabulistic mystery knowledge goes back some time.

I cannot remember if it is the Hindu gods who fought each other on the battle field of Earth with weapons that perfectly describe modern Nuclear weapons, but there is said to be areas in the far East where evrything has been turned to glass, bit like the remains of Hiroshima.

[Berean]

(2 Peter 2:5) and he did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people;



I don&#39;t know what in what sense Noah being a &#39;preacher of righteous&#39; should be taken. Was he a &#39;preacher&#39; by means of his conduct? Or did Noah take on a personal mission (since he was given no command to do so) to warn people about the end coming?[/b]
Well, I looked it up in an interlinear translation, and the word &#39;preacher&#39; does mean a herald who speaks on God&#39;s behalf, so it would seem Noah was indeed a preacher in the sense we would see it. However, as it does not say he started some sort of preaching campaign after having been told of the flood, I am led to believe that he preached throughout his life, telling the people of God&#39;s righteousness. In other words, Noah did not need the threat of impending doom to motivate him to action.

[James]

<div class='quotemain'>(2 Peter 2:5) and he did not hold back from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a deluge upon a world of ungodly people;



I don&#39;t know what in what sense Noah being a &#39;preacher of righteous&#39; should be taken. Was he a &#39;preacher&#39; by means of his conduct? Or did Noah take on a personal mission (since he was given no command to do so) to warn people about the end coming?[/b]
Well, I looked it up in an interlinear translation, and the word &#39;preacher&#39; does mean a herald who speaks on God&#39;s behalf, so it would seem Noah was indeed a preacher in the sense we would see it. However, as it does not say he started some sort of preaching campaign after having been told of the flood, I am led to believe that he preached throughout his life, telling the people of God&#39;s righteousness. In other words, Noah did not need the threat of impending doom to motivate him to action.
[/b][/quote]

Noah is repeatedly used in reference to sharing in the ministry and since Moses was scant on details of Noahs&#39; life before the Flood in Genesis, I have to ask why no one besides his family got saved? He was 600 years old when he went into the Ark and if he preached most of his life, either his heart was not in his preaching or not one person listened to him. I think, more likely, that "Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God". (Gen 6:9 ) I think he walked with Jehovah in the sight of man, so he would not lie, cheat, steal, etc... and would tell people to do good and talk about God but, I don&#39;t think he went from house to house or town to town.
As a side note, if Noah was 500 Years old before he fathered Shem, Ham and Japheth, do you think he had other children? Most likely he did but, if he did,unfortunately they succumbed to the wickedness of the world and therefore did not get mentioned as theirs&#39; would be a resurrection of judgment.

Thanks,
James

[Jinnvisible]

Well, I looked it up in an interlinear translation, and the word &#39;preacher&#39; does mean a herald who speaks on God&#39;s behalf, so it would seem Noah was indeed a preacher in the sense we would see it. However, as it does not say he started some sort of preaching campaign after having been told of the flood, I am led to believe that he preached throughout his life, telling the people of God&#39;s righteousness. In other words, Noah did not need the threat of impending doom to motivate him to action.[/b]

Seems right

[Berean]

Noah is repeatedly used in reference to sharing in the ministry and since Moses was scant on details of Noahs&#39; life before the Flood in Genesis, I have to ask why no one besides his family got saved? He was 600 years old when he went into the Ark and if he preached most of his life, either his heart was not in his preaching or not one person listened to him. I think, more likely, that "Noah was a righteous man. He proved himself faultless among his contemporaries. Noah walked with the true God". (Gen 6:9 ) I think he walked with Jehovah in the sight of man, so he would not lie, cheat, steal, etc... and would tell people to do good and talk about God but, I don&#39;t think he went from house to house or town to town.[/b]
Yes, you have a good point there. I also do not believe he went from door to door, but he likely did issue warnings that people weren&#39;t doing the right things, much like how prophets like Elijah didn&#39;t talk face to face with everyone, but their message was very clear. Also keep in mind that while 8 people being saved doesn&#39;t seem like a lot - and it isn&#39;t - there weren&#39;t billions of people alive back then, perhaps not even millions. And if you add to that the fact that those people were all very much engrossed with their own happiness, not to mention the fascination with the fallen angels, they had plenty of things to distract them from Noah&#39;s message.

[Elatjewel]

Interesting thread.

The BBC are now doing a series of famous Bible stories starting from the beginning as the Passion at Easter was well received by most ……..Not me as it showed Jesus as a puny preacher and left out so many important scriptures…..

But now they have decided with all the technology to make it possible with affects………..Noah and the Ark will be one of them. I wonder now what they will leave out!

It will be interesting to see inside the Ark and how the sewage system is in place and off course the air filters………How much room was given to the larger animals and was there a walkway round as a recreational area for them?

Will the BBC mention the Nephilim or leave them out altogether?

Any thoughts on this ?

EJ

[Reader]

Interesting thread.

The BBC are now doing a series of famous Bible stories starting from the beginning as the Passion at Easter was well received by most ……..Not me as it showed Jesus as a puny preacher and left out so many important scriptures…..
[/b]

Ahh, just like most movies, the book is always better.

Reader

[shikinah]

<div class='quotemain'>Interesting thread.

The BBC are now doing a series of famous Bible stories starting from the beginning as the Passion at Easter was well received by most ……..Not me as it showed Jesus as a puny preacher and left out so many important scriptures…..
[/b]

Ahh, just like most movies, the book is always better.

Reader
[/b][/quote]


Jesus said when you preach, tell them that the kingdom of god was near. So no doubt noah would have preached a similar message. That civilisation as they knew it was coming to an end..

Sisterly Love.
Elizabeth x

[Aland]

Hello everyone,

I was curious to know if any had come across legitimate scientific research into the flood. I know they say their is a fissure that encircles the earth which could be from whence the water from below sprang. Since this is not the direction "science" chooses to go it seems the literature is rather sparse, but I imagine there must be some archeological evidence somewhere. It would also be very interesting to see an honest study of what it would mean to have a canopy of water over the earth and under ground. We know that it didn&#39;t rain and vegetation was watered by a mist at night, but I&#39;d love to know of actual research. I would also imagine that the water below would have the effect of possibly stablizing tectonic plates, not to mention with out all the pressure on the surface there probably weren&#39;t the unlivable mountain heights we have today.

And on a side note....does anyone have info regarding how radiometric dating is really accomplished. I have heard they may some rather broad asumptions to begin with. Much of what I&#39;ve found has been from fundamentalists who claim the universe is only 6-12 thousand years old so its hard to swallow.

Thanx.
One love.

[Jeshurun]

Greetings Aland!

As you know, thousands of feet of water were needed to bring the great deluge, and "Vail&#39;s Canopy Theory" as taught by the Watchtower has long been discarded as a viable explanation for where the water came from, and with good reason: A water "canopy" holding only 40 feet of water would have caused atmospheric pressure to heat up the entire earth to a rather uncomfortable 800 degrees F! If God really meant a "canopy", he would have inspired Moses to use one of the
three words for "canopy": "chuppah", "tsab" or "shaphruwr." The word used was "firmament":

7549 raqiya` raw-kee&#39;-ah from 7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the
firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.

You are correct that the flood waters came from the "watery deep", pressurized water that was sealed below the earth&#39;s crust. Genesis 1:2 says, "and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The Hebrew/Aramaic word for deep:

8415 thowm teh-home&#39; or thom {teh-home&#39;}; (usually feminine) from 1949; an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water-supply):--deep (place), depth.

...and also the root word...

1949 huwm hoom a primitive root (Compare 2000); to make an uproar, or agitate greatly:--destroy, move, make
a noise, put, ring again.

In the account of the Master Worker, we read at Proverbs 8:28: "when he strengthened the fountains of the deep."

When the deluge was triggered, Genesis 7:11 says: "In the six hundredth year of Noah&#39;s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

So we see that when the world was founded, the "deep" or "abyss" of waters was "strengthened". Other versions render it "heavily charged with water". This means water pressure, and this pressurized water was released by "breaking open" the "fountains" of the great deep. What does a fountain do? It sprays pressurized
water vertically. If the pressure was strong enough, the fountains would reach high enough into the atmosphere to trigger immediate rain.

Here is the best theory that I have seen on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroplate_theory#Hydroplates

Dr. Brown has a great website that answered many questions for me, perhaps you will find it makes sense too....

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/....html#wp2939200 (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ312.html#wp2939200)

Other FAQ&#39;s here:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartIII.html

Agape,
Jesh

[Utuna]

Dear Jesh,

Have you ever seen the clouds low above our heads so filled with drops of waters that we all thought down below it was already evening whereas it was just noon ?

I&#39;ve seen this meteorological phenomenon many times (to a very limited scale compared with the Flood, of course) and it made me think about the Flood ! If such a huge quantity of water was above their heads from the beginning on, how would they be able to see anything ? Did Adam and Eve ever live for 930 years with flashlights... ? This objection is, among other ones, why I don&#39;t believe the WT scenario.

Regarding the preaching work that Noah would had done in those times, I&#39;d rather say that his building of the Ark, his lifestyle, etc was in itself a condemnation of all the other ones that didn&#39;t believe in the reasons why he was building it. The Bible says in many other occurences that just standing for Jehovah might serve as a testimony and condamnation for evildoers.

Moreover, the earth was filled with so much violence in those days that it is possible that the family of Noah suffered many bereavements, maybe his parents, some of his sons, and so on.

As for their level of advancement, I think that many things that we currently use today, and that we consider as "advancement" are rather "late" discoveries: Iron, paper, wheel (mayas and aztecs didn&#39;t know about it), writing (people in Amazonie or Papouasie - Nouvelle Guinée*, etc don&#39;t use it, why didn&#39;t they had known about it from the very start from their forefathers?)... Furthermore, the Bible says that in Genesis 4:22 : "As for Zil´lah, she too gave birth to Tu´bal-cain, the forger of every sort of tool of copper and iron. And the sister of Tu´bal-cain was Na´a·mah". Iron is not found in archeological sites until about 3000 BCE (approximatively... date depends on the country), never ever before ! If their civilisation was far more advanced than ours, why didn&#39;t the sons of Noah gave to their sons this useful knowledge ? Why having waited for centuries before discovering again these things ? Why nothing is found in archeological sites? My own subjective understanding is that their level of advancement was poor because it was not discovered yet or maybe because it was limited by the fallen angels, using this obscurantism as a tool to enslave, exploit and kill humans (compare with 1 Samuel 13:19-22 : "Now there was not a smith to be found in all the land of Israel, because the Phi·lis´tines had said: "That the Hebrews may not make a sword or a spear." And all the Israelites would go down to the Phi·lis´tines to get each one his plowshare or his mattock or his ax or his sickle sharpened. And the price for sharpening proved to be a pim for the plowshares and for the mattocks and for the three-toothed instruments and for the axes and for fixing fast the oxgoad. And it happened on the day of battle that not a sword or a spear was found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jon´a·than; but there could be found one belonging to Saul and to Jon´a·than his son.")

I&#39;m interested by the links you provide and the alternative scenario these sites present. Thanks ! I&#39;m gonna read them ASAP !

"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J&#39;ai pétri de la boue et j&#39;en ai fait de l&#39;or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S&#39;il m&#39;a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c&#39;est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton

[Jeshurun]

Dear Jesh,

Have you ever seen the clouds low above our heads so filled with drops of waters that we all thought down below it was already evening whereas it was just noon ?

I&#39;ve seen this meteorological phenomenon many times (to a very limited scale compared with the Flood, of course) and it made me think about the Flood ! If such a huge quantity of water was above their heads from the beginning on, how would they be able to see anything ? Did Adam and Eve ever live for 930 years with flashlights... ? This objection is, among other ones, why I don&#39;t believe the WT scenario.[/b]

Hi Utuna...

Many ancient civilizations depicted the sky like a wheel with spokes, with the sun in the middle and squiggly lines emanating from it in all directions. The only logical explanation for me is that what they saw in the sky was much different before the flood. It has to do with plasma, of which 99 percent of the universe is made. If you read the page "Did it rain before the flood" on Dr. Brown&#39;s site, he explains that the atmosphere had little or no volcanic dust before the flood, so there was very little "condensation nuclei" to form high clouds. Instead, the water droplets got too big too quickly during condensation, and fell back to earth as a "mist" before it got very high in the sky.

All this leads me to believe that the earth was damaged by the flood and is still suffering the effects, with a completely different ecosystem than the one God installed when He declared everything "very good". I also believe that electromagnetic signals from the quasars were altered at the same time, and thus the need for a "new heavens and a new earth". The reason I believe this can be found here, it shows how the earth grew in size as did the planets in our solar system, knocking out the theory of "Pangea":

http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

Although I think he has everything right except for the "millions of years" part...I see no reason why it couldn&#39;t have transpired within a few months during the time of the flood.

Love,
Jesh

[Utuna]

Dear Jesh,

I&#39;m glad to discuss again with you.

I personally believe that the credo stating that rain never occurred before the Flood is an utter fallacy. The Bible doesn&#39;t say that there was no rain when Adam and Eve lived on earth (1). The Bible just says that there was no rain before the end of the second day (2). How would so much grass and many trees have been able to grow and reach such a height with just dew ? How would you explain four rivers supplied in water with just dew (and without mountains)... (Gen2:13-14) ? The book of Genesis is made somewhat from collection of "ancient" and independant "books" (Gen2:4;5:1,...) and the way they relate our "cosmogony" may not take into account what&#39;s written in between them.

Interestingly, I read just yesterday a magazine about astronomy providing photos of the surface of planet Mars with morning dew, just like what ocurred before Jehovah created vegetation, grass and trees. The article I read said that at times it even ocurred that dew got at the surface of the lens of the camera, impeding the robot to take shots for a while...

When I talked about water canopy darkening the ground, I had not in mind just a few dark clouds. If so much water (enough to accomplish what the Flood did) was standing high above their heads, even the sun would not have been visible through it. Have you ever gone diving under water ? It&#39;s unbelievable how fast light gets dim as you go down. If all the huge quantity of water needed for the Flood had been standing "in the air" for a while, what would have been the equivalent in meters up to the sky (leaving untold how you sustain in the air such a weight) ? Don&#39;t you think that such a quantity of water would have darkened the ground far more than the sun looking like wheel with spokes.

(1) "Now there was as yet no bush of the field found in the earth and no vegetation of the field was as yet sprouting, because Jehovah God had not made it rain upon the earth and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist would go up from the earth and it watered the entire surface of the ground." - (Genesis 2:5-6)

(2) "And God went on to say: "Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear." And it came to be so. And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas. Further, God saw that [it was] good. And God went on to say: "Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth." And it came to be so. And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that [it was] good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a third day." - (Genesis 1:9-13)

My arguments are not to be perceived as against the Bible or against the Flood and the real origin of mankind, that is God&#39;s creation. I strongly believe that all of this occurred thanks to the love, wisdom and perfect laws God designed once and for all. I believe the same about the Flood because too many independant mythologies and stories talk about it. It&#39;s just nonsense to discard the reality of such an event. I just disagree about the way humans interpret the biblical account.

-----------------------------------
"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J&#39;ai pétri de la boue et j&#39;en ai fait de l&#39;or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S&#39;il m&#39;a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c&#39;est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton

[FutureMan]

<div class='quotemain'>Dear Jesh,

Have you ever seen the clouds low above our heads so filled with drops of waters that we all thought down below it was already evening whereas it was just noon ?

I&#39;ve seen this meteorological phenomenon many times (to a very limited scale compared with the Flood, of course) and it made me think about the Flood ! If such a huge quantity of water was above their heads from the beginning on, how would they be able to see anything ? Did Adam and Eve ever live for 930 years with flashlights... ? This objection is, among other ones, why I don&#39;t believe the WT scenario.

Regarding the preaching work that Noah would had done in those times, I&#39;d rather say that his building of the Ark, his lifestyle, etc was in itself a condemnation of all the other ones that didn&#39;t believe in the reasons why he was building it. The Bible says in many other occurences that just standing for Jehovah might serve as a testimony and condamnation for evildoers.

Moreover, the earth was filled with so much violence in those days that it is possible that the family of Noah suffered many bereavements, maybe his parents, some of his sons, and so on.

As for their level of advancement, I think that many things that we currently use today, and that we consider as "advancement" are rather "late" discoveries: Iron, paper, wheel (mayas and aztecs didn&#39;t know about it), writing (people in Amazonie or Papouasie - Nouvelle Guinée*, etc don&#39;t use it, why didn&#39;t they had known about it from the very start from their forefathers?)... Furthermore, the Bible says that in Genesis 4:22 : "As for Zil´lah, she too gave birth to Tu´bal-cain, the forger of every sort of tool of copper and iron. And the sister of Tu´bal-cain was Na´a·mah". Iron is not found in archeological sites until about 3000 BCE (approximatively... date depends on the country), never ever before ! If their civilisation was far more advanced than ours, why didn&#39;t the sons of Noah gave to their sons this useful knowledge ? Why having waited for centuries before discovering again these things ? Why nothing is found in archeological sites? My own subjective understanding is that their level of advancement was poor because it was not discovered yet or maybe because it was limited by the fallen angels, using this obscurantism as a tool to enslave, exploit and kill humans (compare with 1 Samuel 13:19-22 : "Now there was not a smith to be found in all the land of Israel, because the Phi·lis´tines had said: "That the Hebrews may not make a sword or a spear." And all the Israelites would go down to the Phi·lis´tines to get each one his plowshare or his mattock or his ax or his sickle sharpened. And the price for sharpening proved to be a pim for the plowshares and for the mattocks and for the three-toothed instruments and for the axes and for fixing fast the oxgoad. And it happened on the day of battle that not a sword or a spear was found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jon´a·than; but there could be found one belonging to Saul and to Jon´a·than his son.")

I&#39;m interested by the links you provide and the alternative scenario these sites present. Thanks ! I&#39;m gonna read them ASAP !