The Great Flood [Archive] - Final Fantasy XIII Forums

Rikku

Jun 02 2007, 12:10 AM

In almost every single culture in every single part of the world, there is a belief in the Great Flood -- as in, like, the Flood from the Bible. Do you personally believe that this happened? Or do you think that there is some sort of explanation?

Possible stances to take on this:

- Everybody believes in it (to a certain extent) because it truly did happen for whatever reason, and therefore, affected every single culture. People, either because of a fear of floods or religion, created stories out of it.
+ The Flood is made plausible because of various findings -- salt deposits high up in the mountains that suddenly stop, dead sea creatures found in caves on elevated land regions and such
+ Evidence of the last Ice Age could have been misinterpreted and was actually evidence of the Flood
+ OR, the Ice Age was the cause of the flood and evidence has, once again, been misinterpreted
+ Keep in mind that this can mean either multiple floods or one flood

- Language, originating from Babylon, spread out from there during and after the fall. Since the fall of Babylon is after the flood, with the spread of language comes the belief of the flood and its supernatural/divine causes
+ Locations that have, for millions of years, never had any contact with each other have shared this belief even through this no-contact period; for example, China and Rome. However, this theory is still plausible because the spread of language has gone east and west, meaning that Chinese and Roman ultimately has the same roots just like some of the beliefs
+ Keep in mind that this results in the belief of only ONE flood

- A mixture of both; the flood (as well as others) actually happened and was remembered to certain extents, but with the spread of language, it strengthened the belief that it happened as well as the fear -- thus creating stories out of it
+ I find this to be the most plausible since it explains the dead sea squirrels in the mountains and would also explain why every culture has managed to keep this bit of alleged 'history'
+ This also does not necessarily mean believing in any divine intervention or cause of the Flood

What is your personal take on this? Actually: Do you believe that the Flood happened at all?

EDIT: Made my last point clearer to a certain extent.
EDIT2: As well my other two XD

Pixel

Jun 02 2007, 12:17 AM

I think that the Great Flood happened.

Rikku

Jun 02 2007, 12:19 AM

Care to specify?

Pixel

Jun 02 2007, 12:23 AM

Well, I believe that the flood happened because of the Bible, and I do agree with all the evidence that shows that the flood happened. I do not think that the ice Age caused the Flood though......

Rikku

Jun 02 2007, 12:31 AM

Hitoshura

Jun 02 2007, 01:01 AM

Since I believe in God, its obvious what my answer would be.

Also, the rainbow is proof. How did it come about? Did it just "magically" appear? heh heh, sure.

Pixel

Jun 02 2007, 01:15 AM

Ah, yes, religion. =P It can't exactly be proven or disproven, but I believe that the Ice Age is the most plausible cause since I am not religious. So why does it appear so much in religion? Humans those days ran on an agricultural system; floods were bad things -- and therefore, the Great Flood, strongly associated with death, was inserted into many a religion.

'Course, that's only my belief.

Well, the thing about the rainbow is a good point...and the fact that the flood appears in many religions is just I guess the spreading of stories through generations....and if you go with that one then somebody had to start the story so they had to see it, If I am not mistaken it would be Noah and his family.....

Rikku

Jun 02 2007, 01:29 AM

and the fact that the flood appears in many religions is just I guess the spreading of stories through generations....
That's a flawed theory since many countries have had no connections with each other in the past except for maybe the vague one of language.

and if you go with that one then somebody had to start the story so they had to see it, If I am not mistaken it would be Noah and his family.....
My take on things is that the flood did not necessarily wipe out everything. It's plausible for people to escape such a thing. It's plausible for animals to do the same. So, it is not necessarily Noah...

Also, the rainbow is proof. How did it come about? Did it just "magically" appear? heh heh, sure.
Uh, no, the rainbow is not proof. The rainbow comes about due to simple sciences you learn before Eighth grade Canadian science -- it's physics.
After it rains, water droplets splits the white light like a prism does. It is in an arch because it cuts off at the bottom -- it's really a circle, but the ground is in a way. Why is it in a circle? Because the light only splits at certain angles.

So, really, a rainbow happens just because.

Pixel

Jun 02 2007, 01:32 AM

That's a flawed theory since many countries have had no connections with each other in the past except for maybe the vague one of language.

My take on things is that the flood did not necessarily wipe out everything. It's plausible for people to escape such a thing. It's plausible for animals to do the same. So, it is not necessarily Noah...

Uh, no, the rainbow is not proof. The rainbow comes about due to simple sciences you learn before Eighth grade Canadian science -- it's physics.
After it rains, water droplets splits the white light like a prism does. It is in an arch because it cuts off at the bottom -- it's really a circle, but the ground is in a way. Why is it in a circle? Because the light only splits at certain angles.

So, really, a rainbow happens just because.

I should have remembered that.....And the spreading through stories, that was just a guess and in the Bible it said that everything was killed and I think that there might have been a slight possibility of something surviving, but not a human being.....

Rikku

Jun 02 2007, 02:03 AM

The Bible, as you must remember, is not entirely solid evidence because even a Christian mentioned on here that faith played in a big part. So, no offense, but I do not completely think that it is entirely accurate. It does not matter if Noah and his family were the only surviving humans, though; whether or not if they were, the fact is that humans repopulated and the most recent flood had had a devestating effect on them -- large enough to create stories and to be incorporated into religion.

Hitoshura

Jun 02 2007, 02:10 AM

Rikku

Jun 02 2007, 02:14 AM

I never implied that it wasn't. That comment that a Christian mentioned it was for back-up in case somebody crazy came along and said it was a definite truth (I was doubtful it would, but I put it in for insurance since it's happened before). I already knew that, seeing as how I was pretty close to becoming Christian myself at one point. o_O

And, yes, we are. XD OK ON-TOPIC.

Devious

Jun 02 2007, 03:02 AM

I knew you'd do this. =/

The Babylonians had a flood myth. Therefore, most other civilizations after it had a flood myth. Although, the Hebrew flood myth was based off of the Mesopotamian version, which in turn was probably influenced by the Babylonian version.

The flood myths may also be based off of actual floods or tsunamis, such as the megatsunami created by the Minoan Eruption, one of the greatest volcanic eruptions in the history of the Earth, around 1600 BC. The rise in sea levels after the Ice Age is another obvious theory.

Or, perhaps through observation of aquatic fossils found early in history by the Chinese, Greeks, etc, they created a myth and it spread. Simple.

Personally, I believe that all the myths originated from the Babylonians, and was carried to other cultures by word of mouth.

I don't think the Bible's all that accurate. It's a 2000 year old book by religiously biased followers of Christ. I don't think people were educated enough to challenge what was presented before them rather than accepting it no matter how ridiculous. No offense to Christians, it's just my personal belief.

Rikku

Jun 02 2007, 03:13 AM

By the word of mouth... and therefore language. >>

Is there anything wrong with me doing this?

Anyway, those are all very plausible theories; good job for thinking up of them. I never really thought of those ideas. The problem is, though, that simply telling people about the myth assuming that it actually originated from a certain point can't explain why it is seen so much everywhere and used to be so strongly believed in. When the Pagans first heard about Christianity, after all, they went 'wtf?', after all.

P.S. It wasn't just a simple rise in sea levels; it was an actual flood. That's what evidence points to, anyway. How else can salt deposits end up on a mountain?

ozonez

Jun 02 2007, 01:55 PM

Noahs ark is 100% impossible. The fact that Noah managed to build a boat made out of wood which could carry 2 of every animal is silly. Plus where the hell did he get all the animals?

Hitoshura

Jun 02 2007, 01:59 PM

Would you mind goin deeper in why you don't believe so please ?

Devious

Jun 02 2007, 03:52 PM

Noahs ark is 100% impossible. The fact that Noah managed to build a boat made out of wood which could carry 2 of every animal is silly. Plus where the hell did he get all the animals?
We're not talking about Noah's Ark. We're discussing whether there was a Great Flood. Noah may not have of had any role in it, but it's very plausible. All around the world, people have been finding aquatic fossils and salt deposits and such on mountains and areas of high elevation, which might indicate they were left there by a huge flood.

Rikku

Jun 02 2007, 04:49 PM

But, I do have to agree with Kira in the fact that Ozonez should go into more detail. Things were different back then; people allegedly had a longer life-span, were probably a lot stronger and closer to perfection, etc. For all you know, the boat could've been built (heck, God could've had a hand in it -- the Bible really isn't supposed to go into detail). It really can't be proven true or not, though I personally do not believe in it.

Anyway, that being said, do you have an opinion of the existence of the actual flood and its origins?

Lifrasthir

Jun 03 2007, 08:02 PM

Why does everyone say that religion can't be proven???

Oh, and I believe in the Great Flood.

Hitoshura

Jun 03 2007, 08:25 PM

If religion can't be proven, then why are you guys Atheist or Bhuddist? etc.

Rikku

Jun 04 2007, 02:38 AM

Atheism is completely different from buddhist.

And if you're going to ask about a religion, please spell it correctly.

Both religions are entirely off topic anyway.

Religion can't be proven because you don't know if there is a God. You believe that there is a God, but you don't know. God has never presented himself to enough people alive today for us to KNOW that he exists. Retrospectively, we cannot entirely disprove his existence.

And if somebody IS atheist it's because they acknowledge the lack of proof of God and other religions and simply do not believe in anything. Atheism is really just disbelief, not a religion.

And buddhism can be answered in this way: Why are you guys Christian?

Tempus Fugit, care to elaborate? Or maybe even argue one of the already presented points?

I don't think the Bible's all that accurate. It's a 2000 year old book by religiously biased followers of Christ. I don't think people were educated enough to challenge what was presented before them rather than accepting it no matter how ridiculous. No offense to Christians, it's just my personal belief.

The Bible is not all that accurate in what specifically?

And I could argue that, anyway. Asides from the whole religious deal, the Bible does coincide with things historically. Babylon did exist, as did David, and Babylon is where different languages originated from. There may not have been a single Great Flood created by God, but the existence of at least one huge flood is very plausible. And while it isn't a science textbook, from what I've read and taken a look at, it does coexist well with science today.

And as for the whole religious deal, it really can't be proven or disproven.

Anyway, even if that weren't true or if it were a flimsy explanation (which it is since it took 20 seconds to come up with), you're dead wrong in saying that people accepted scriptures without question. Many other books were written but never accepted as 'inspired'. Why? Because people were educated in those days and found many things to be objectionable. Take a look at the Ethiopic Bible, for example.

'Course, I'm not saying that the Bible is entirely flawless. Sorry to those who think otherwise.