Gilgamesh And Noah's Ark

[Neon Genesis]

I personally see no benefit in trying to build or destroy faith in God based on stories that supposedly took place so far back in antiquity that nothing can be proven. Being a universalist, I am encouraged by the fact that our oral traditions are so similar. It shows that all were being taught the same lessons as part of the plan for all to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

Aren't paradigms fun? LOL

 

John

I'm sorry, but you make no fucking sense. First, you said in the Colesseum thread that all religion is made up, now you're turning around and saying that all religion is true, just different versions of it. I wish you would make up your goddamn mind already and stop with the fucking flip-flopping. It's annoying, dishonest, and not to mention disrespectful. Furthermore, what the hell makes you think that just because the stories are repeated in different religions, then that suddenly means the story must be true (never mind that there is no evidence for a world-wide flood that nearly wiped off all of humanity whatsoever). That's like saying because Roman mythology has similarities to Greek mythology, that proves Roman mythology must be true! Because obviously stories that are repeated can't be false and obviously the story ripping off the earlier version of the story must somehow magically be true even though in modern times we would call this plagiarism! OMFG, Christianity suddenly makes sense now! We just have to reverse everything logical to understand it! Glory!

[Grandpa Harley]

Like I said, if the flood was an actual event and took place in 4000 BC and Gilgamesh was written 2600 BC and Genesis 1500 BC, this could reflect a common oral tradition that had changes through the years of being passed down. There are a lot of "ifs" in either explanation for the commonality in the two stories. Too many to determne if they were commonly passed down oral traditions from a common ancestry or plagerizm on the part of the one whose book was written last. A moot point that supports whichever view of creation you hold as most likely true.

 

You talking of some local flood or a global one?

 

There is no evidence of a major local flood in the geology of the region, and the last 'global' flood evidence is about 15,000 years ago, about the time of the last Ice age, during the Labrador Rebound^*, when the Indian ocean rose to more or less it's present levels...

 

 

 

*- the tectonic plate that North America is on was pressed down between 150 and 200 feet by the weight of the Labrador Glaciation. The ice receded, causing a minor run off of water, then the plate 'rebounded' as in, in a few hours it returned to it's original shape. This caused massive displacement of the Atlantic, causing catastrophic sea level rises in low lying areas that haven't receded to the present...

[Telesmith]

Debtor-

 

Note: sorry about the ongoing hijack. Probably shouldn't have instigated a credo from Debtor in a thread on flood stories.

 

The violence in the apocalypse of John doesn’t present a problem for you? Paul’s chauvinism? Jesus likening himself to a king who slaughters those who do not concede his authority in Luke? God experimenting with humans in a battle of wits with Satan and mocking Job for not being the creator of the universe? These don’t bother you? I would submit that the morality of the book of Job is horrendous. Paul is a pig both in his treatment of women and his ethics regarding atonement and Jesus analogizes himself to a tyrant and a war monger in Luke and revelation.

 

The books you mention are indeed some of the best the bible has to offer. Still, these parts are wrought with ethics considered appalling by today’s standards. I personally find the incarnation to be a beautiful ideal. God coming to reconcile himself to humanity! Good stuff Maynard. However, we cannot escape that the incarnation is predicated on original sin. A disgusting belief: My point is this: the bible at its best is still a wretched book. And my question is this: At what point does the cloth to scripture require so much trimming that it is utterly useless? I suspect you are not to far from reaching a point where you only have a few scraps of cloth left, hardly worth patching your existential garments. The price your paying by assenting to the metaphysical claims of scripture are hardly worth what your getting in return: a thumb to suck. I’m really not trying to insult you here but come now.

[Taphophilia]

According to fragmented tablets that have been pieced together, the flood myth is possibly based on an actual river flood. Though, it's not possible to verify since no artifacts have been found. There were several river floods in Sumer during the third millennium BC. The flood layer in Ur was discovered by Leonard Woolley, which was dated by archaeologist Max Mallowan at the end of the Jemdet Nasr period and the beginning of the Early Dynastic I period. This flood was radiocarbon dated at about 2900 BC and corresponds to flood layers attested at the Sumerian cities Shuruppak, Uruk, and the oldest of several flood layers at Kish. This flood of 2900 BC left a few feet of yellow mud in Shuruppak.

 

According to the Sumerian King List, a legendary king named Ziusudra lived in Shuruppak at the time of the flood. There was also a flood myth about king Ziusudra which includes several story elements very similar to the Genesis flood myth. Shuruppak was also the flood hero's city according to the Epic of Gilgamesh. The flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh was adapted from an earlier myth, the Epic of Atrahasis which is also very similar to the Genesis flood myth. Six of these Ancient Near East flood myths contain numerous distinctive story elements that are very similar to the Genesis flood myth and indicate a literary affinity or dependency on a common body of myths about the flood hero Ziusudra and based on the Euphrates River flood of 2900 BC.

 

The reconstructed legend is this:

 

Ziusudra reigned for ten years as king of Shuruppak, then on the Euphrates River. Ziusudra's reign was at the end of the Jemdet Nasr period that ended with the flood of 2900 BC. Then as now, river barges were used for transporting cargo on the Euphrates River. This cargo included livestock, beer, wine, textiles, lumber, stone, metals, dried fish, vegetable oil, and other cargo. (It always irritates me that the ancients are portrayed as primative simpletons, without commerce or thriving economy) In June about 2900 BC during the annual inundation of the Euphrates River, the river was at crest stage. A rare six-day thunderstorm caused the river to rise about 15 cubits (22 feet) higher and overflow the levees. By the time the river began to rise, it was already too late for Ziusudra (Noah) to evacuate to the foothills of the mountains 110 miles away. Ziusudra boarded one the the barges that was already loaded with cargo being transported to market. The runaway barge floated down the Euphrates River into the Persian Gulf and grounded in an estuary at the mouth of the river. After moving to dry land, Ziusudra offered a sacrifice to a Sumerian god on an alter at the top of a temple ziggurat, an artificial hill. Later, story tellers mistranslated the ambiguous word for hill as mountain. The story tellers then erroneously assumed that the nearby barge must have grounded on top of a mountain.

[R. S. Martin]

A moot point that supports whichever view of creation you hold as most likely true.

 

Kratos, that trick doesn't work here. We don't hold ANY view of creation to be true. Thus, your ENTIRE THEORY goes down the drain.

[Taphophilia]

A moot point that supports whichever view of creation you hold as most likely true.

 

Kratos, that trick doesn't work here. We don't hold ANY view of creation to be true. Thus, your ENTIRE THEORY goes down the drain.

 

It's obvious, that Kratos is pulling his opinoins out of his ass. The older flood myths and the Epic of Gilgamesh do not in any way refute any existance of a god. He is trying to imply that is what we are saying. The fact is, and as we have demonstrated, the Bible stories are based on older myths and are not original to that culture but were, in fact, incorporated into it. I'd like to point out, there are over 139 references in the Bible to Sumerian deities. Sumeria was a culture with a heavy influence in the ancient world, much like the US is today. Even today, remnants of this culture are in our method keeping time using 12/60. If an original American myth, such as Paul Bunyan, were incorporated into another culture and retold, it would have elements of that culture but still retain much of the American literary affinities. We are not talking plagerism here, we are talking incorporation and adaption of cultural myths. And, no, myths are not the same as lies.

 

Taph

[R. S. Martin]

First of all, re the venom for Lewis. I get him and Lee Strobel mixed up. But it's guys like them that came between me and my family. Evangelical religion is pure poison.

 

I take Job, Jonah, Luke, John, Romans and John 1 to be most meaningful. The rest of the NT does not present a major problem, I'm good with it. The rest of the OT I regard with suspicion, but I might get back to a cordial relationship with it at some point in time. That is, if anyone can explain the genocide to me!

 

About justice and Job. How is it justice that innocent people and animals suffer and die so that God can prove to his competitor that he is stronger?

 

I believe in God; the nature of God, as I understand Him, is that He is ultimately just or fair and has done right by creating.

 

Isn't that a cop-out? When I tried that approach I got kicked out of the family anyway.

 

I believe in Jesus, the Incarnate God, who represents both a historical reality and an uncreated, eternal existence. I am not sure how to take the various understandings of the Atonement in the Cross, but in some valid sense He is my Savior. He is a comfort and an ideal to me.

 

Here's the real problem. I've posted some of this before but will post it again. How does Jesus' death and resurrection fix the problem between you and God so that you can go to heaven? I start with the presupposition that: a) God would have "just forgiven" if there were no more to it than that. Therefore, there must be more to it than that; there must have been a physical obstacle somewhere that was moved when Jesus died or resurrected. b ) Jesus' death could not possibly have been symbolic (e.g. based on the Jewish understanding of sacrifice) because the price is too great for that to be ethical. An almighty, all-knowing God would come up with something far superior and far more useful than symbology. Therefore, Jesus' death had to serve a practical purpose; something must have changed at Jesus' death for his death to have been necessary. c) While faith may not be logical, Heb. 11:1 says it is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. To me, this means faith is more than hopeful or wishful thinking or blind faith. It means that faith or theology must make sense so far as the human mind is able to comprehend. Therefore, the Plan of Salvation must make sense to me and hang together for me today in the 21st century just as it did for the first Christians in the first century. An all-wise omniscient God would be able to come up with such a plan. Even I could come up with such a plan if I tried hard enough. I'd like God to be better at this kind of thing than myself.

 

I enjoy written human works and see something of God's hand in reason itself.

 

I would like to see "God's hand of reason" in the Plan of Salvation as laid out above--or better--if you care to elaborate.

 

I have hope for life and of doing God's work, lending a hand to both spiritual and humanitarian aid.

 

So do I. But biblegod is out of the picture and unnecessary for hope in life. You mention that some of like having a target. If you will observe closely you will note that we enjoy even more having intelligent conversation and that "targets" tend to be less than logically intelligent debaters. However, given the presuppositions with which you approach life, I am not sure you can detect what I am referring to. I find it truly annoying when a person purportes to be engaging in intelligent conversation but persistently glosses over critical points of debate, and denies having done so when it is pointed out to him.

 

At this point, I am not sure which kind of debater you're going to be. If you want to avoid ambiguity and cognitive dissonance, debtor, I predict with others on here that you have some really hard questions to confront in the near future.

 

The Christian faith does not stand up to rigorous and relentless scrutiny. That is why there is Faith--to fill in and gloss over the rough spots and holes in logic.

 

I am going to make another thread about that soon, but here is a HINT the answer is in "astrology"...

 

I'll keep reading. Despite my flippancy, it IS difficult...

 

I respect those who do not stop just because it's difficult--or seemingly impossible--but press on against the sword pricking their chest for truth at all costs whatever that may be.

[R. S. Martin]

A moot point that supports whichever view of creation you hold as most likely true.

 

Kratos, that trick doesn't work here. We don't hold ANY view of creation to be true. Thus, your ENTIRE THEORY goes down the drain.

 

It's obvious, that Kratos is pulling his opinoins out of his ass.

 

I find his arguments disgusting. He will gloss over points and pretend we didn't make them, then deny having glossed them over when it is pointed out to him. Talking with a person like that is futile, in my opinion.

[florduh]

[quote

 

Talking with a person like that is futile, in my opinion.

 

 

This thread was interesting for a while, but it's truly useless at this point.

 

UNLESS . . . you all realize that Noah actually came first and de lawd reversed time to alter the chronological appearance of events to allow us the opportunity to use faith. You know, like he made the Earth just look old so we could experience the wonders of faith, knowing it's really only 6,000 years old according to his true and holy word.

 

How did we miss it? I feel so dumb now.

 

- Chris

[Deva]

I'd also like to affirm that there is (and has been) a degree of good in humanity as a result of individual and communal Christian committment. There's some genuine altruists out there that do a deal of good as a result of their understanding of Jesus.

 

Of course. Vast numbers have claimed to be Christians and they have done some good. There has also been a massive amount of harm done by Christianity. I am not sure it balances. I think not. More harm than good from what I can see. There have been good things and bad things done by other religions. I maintain that the core message of Christianity which is that human beings are born in sin and therefore need supernatural rescue by a "savior" from on high is one of the most damaging ideas ever developed by the mind of man. Throw in slavery and women as property. The damage done by this idea of "original sin" alone far outweighs the orphanages, hospitals and other things built by wealthy pilanthropists who call themselves Christians.

 

The Gospel message is decent enough and solemn in a way that makes crude defamation pretty crass. Given the premises / worldview I'm operating under, I'd say the depraved nature of humanity is the cause of suffering - we corrupt a good thing, and find it impossible to carry the ideal from paper to action.

 

There is nothing decent about it. It is worth the most "crass" defamation we can bring to it. Where did the depravity of humanity come from? What is the origin of evil? Let's have those missing pieces in your premises/worldview, hopefully given in a real manner of speaking and not your stilted, over-educated, wordy, high and mighty prose.

 

... the NT is where it's at...some good, solid ethics, extrapolated theology that is open to good deal of interpretation, and an unattainable ideal coupled with the hope of eternity. Whatever else you might think of it, it's not nonsense. There's some valid appeals there. Whether it rests on real assumptions is an unanswerable question, at least for now.

 

"A good deal of interpretation" is quite the gross understatement. Hundreds of Christian denominations out there-- they can't agree. You can make it say whatever you want to, if you like. If it helps you in your life more than hard drugs then I can't argue with it too much nor say its nonsense for you. If you honestly say you are making it up as you go along, that's OK with me. But don't bother trying to sell it here. It is unreasonable, immoral and unprovable. It's ideas do not help us, quite the opposite. It's full of 2,000 year old flat earth, outdated science and a bunch of terrible junk ideas like original sin and Paul's "keep the woman in her place" doctrines. It's up to you to defend it and prove its "not nonsense," not just make statements.

 

By the way, what is the definition of a "christian" anymore?

[Taphophilia]

This thread was interesting for a while, but it's truly useless at this point.

 

UNLESS . . . you all realize that Noah actually came first and de lawd reversed time to alter the chronological appearance of events to allow us the opportunity to use faith. You know, like he made the Earth just look old so we could experience the wonders of faith, knowing it's really only 6,000 years old according to his true and holy word.

 

How did we miss it? I feel so dumb now.

 

- Chris

 

I guess that god had intellectual property rights on his ideas and Satan infringed on copyrights when he put them into implimentation first.

[Kratos]

I think that some need to chill a little. The OP brought up observable data that the story of Gilgamesh had a lot of similarities to the story of Noah in the Bible. OK, what do reasonalbe people do when presented with new information from times before recorded history? They propose hypothesis to explain this information which was presented. So far, we have had two hypothesis presented.

 

(1) These are both just created stories with no basis in fact so the similarity must come from the writer of Genesis having had access to the Gigamesh story and added it to their mythology.

 

(2) There was a flood at some time which predated both Gilgamesh and Genesis and that these were two written accounts of the same oral tradition that was past down for many centuries with expected changes in some of the names and events.

 

I contend that either hypothesis could be true and neither can be proven at this time in history. I submitted my hypothesis with the caveat "if" the flood did occur "then".....

 

So we are either going to converse as reasonable people exploring possibile explanations for this commonality in the stories of two diverse cultures or emotionally attack a person submitting an opposing hypothesis just because it still allows for the Bible to be true.

 

Either way works for me. I have no dog in the fight concerning the Noah flood account. I already am fully convinced that many of the Bible stories are parabolic stories to teach spiritual lessons and not actual historic accounts. I do admit that I like the idea that God came to other cultures than the Jews to teach similar paraobolic lessons as He is the God of all afterall. But the fact that I like it does not make it true.

 

John

[The-Captain]

Ever so grudgingly I have to admit Kratos has a point there

 

Arent we all just postulating on myth origins and parallels?

 

It's just as possible that the Noah flood story stems from the same events that the Ut-Napashtim story does. For that matter other cultures in the area had stories of great floods right? Remember Abraham was a Sumerian man himself, no reason that story didnt just get passed along.

 

I've read that perhaps the "great flood" myths originate from either the formation of the Mediteranean or that Indian Ocean rise Gramps mentioned.

 

Wait, I noticed Taph went into greater detail on the origins. That makes sense too. None of us really know for sure, we will interpret the connections as we want, and Kratos will do the same as benefits his side.

 

What does any of this prove either way?

[Neon Genesis]

(2) There was a flood at some time which predated both Gilgamesh and Genesis and that these were two written accounts of the same oral tradition that was past down for many centuries with expected changes in some of the names and events.

 

I contend that either hypothesis could be true and neither can be proven at this time in history. I submitted my hypothesis with the caveat "if" the flood did occur "then".....

 

So we are either going to converse as reasonable people exploring possibile explanations for this commonality in the stories of two diverse cultures or emotionally attack a person submitting an opposing hypothesis just because it still allows for the Bible to be true.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless you have extraordinary evidence to suggest that there was in fact a flood that inspired the creations of these stories, then this is nothing more than an extraordinary claim. Furthermore, even if there was a flood that inspired these stories, I fail to see how this proves the bible is true. Why couldn't these stories be fantastical stories that embellished real life events? Why must the bible be true if there was a real life basis for these events? Does the fact that there was a real life person that Santa Claus' character was based on suddenly prove that Santa Claus has a magical flying sleigh and travels around the world on Christmas eve to deliver presents? If the existence of St. Nicholas doesn't prove that there is a real magical Santa Claus, why should the existence of a real life event that serves as the basis for these flood stories prove that the bible is true? Furthermore, why can't any of these other religions that have flood stories be true and the bible be false? Why must you assume that because somebody wrote a fantasy story based on a real life flood event that it proves that another fantasy story written many years after the event was previously occurred is the true account? Why must one assume that it must be Yahweh behind it all? Why couldn't these have been natural events that have been embellished in their tellings? Why do you make the assumption that it's impossible for the bible to ever be false about anything?

[R. S. Martin]

Ever so grudgingly I have to admit Kratos has a point there

 

Arent we all just postulating on myth origins and parallels?

 

Not if I am reading correctly. If I am reading correctly, Kratos is working might and main to force us to admit (or trick us into admitting) that God exists and that God created the universe and that God is behind the Noah Flood (as well as Gilgamesh) and that therefore we need to reconvert to HIS god.

 

From Post 18

 

I guess it still comes down to whether you believe man evolved in different places around the world independently or whether you believe in creation and a common beginning and heritage in all. (why would he even suggest believe in creation on exC if he weren't aiming at converting?)

 

From Post 25

 

A moot point that supports whichever view of creation you hold as most likely true. (this looks like a trick to get us to choose one or another "view of creation" as though we accepted *a* creation story to begin with; if we accepted *a* creation story, no matter which one or of what brand, it would acknowledge his precious god. Again, why the strong emphasis on creation if he is not aiming to convert?)

 

Post 37

 

what do reasonalbe people do when presented with new information from times before recorded history? (apparently he believes that the flood is true; he calls it "recorded history." So much for his calling it a myth; that was just him massaging his version of truth to make it more palatable for converting the atheist. )

 

As for the origins of the flood myths. I took a course in OT a few years ago. It was taught by a mainstream biblical scholar in Old Testament studies. She is a devoute Christian in the Evangelical Lutheran Church. She, and other mainstream biblical scholars, bases her understanding on scientific analysis of the text and myths. The analysis is done with the same kind of scientific tools that are used for other ancient literature such as Homer. This approach to biblical studies began in Germany sometime after 1750, so it's been around for a fairly long time.

 

She told us that the Noah's Flood myth came from Sumerian mythology.

 

The argument that Abraham might have told someone makes no sense because Ababraham himself is a myth. There is nothing certain about the OT until very late--around the end of the Babylonian captivity.

 

The Kratos type can always find "biblical" proofs to back up their beliefs, even so-called scientific and archaeological evidence. But investigation almost always without fail turns up a fraud one or two layers down. The problem here on exC is that people are too well-trained to be tricked by those fraudulant reports and Kratos thinks they have to work so he keeps at it. He trusts his god so much.

 

Kratos, Post 37, your argument has been refuted. Now let's get down to business.

 

1. Quit playing the innocent martyr. You're anything but innocent and you know it.

 

2. You're lying when you say you haven't a dog in this fight and you know it.

 

3. In one place you call the flood "recorded history," and in another you call it "parabolic stories to teach spiritual lessons and not actual historic accounts." You're twisting things to fit your mood of the moment. That's a forked tongue, which (if I remember correctly) the Bible says is of the devil.

 

4. "But the fact that I like it does not make it true." Once you start writing as though you mean that we might believe you. In the meantime, maybe you should take the chill you promised.

[The-Captain]

What can I say, Im a trusting sort

[R. S. Martin]

I don't think you will get hurt by trusting him. It will make him feel good. I won't stand by silently and watch him preach what I know to be untruths and parade what looks for all the world like evangelizing tricks. Not this time. Maybe some other time I will decide he's not worth my energy. And you did seem to be asking for clarity. So I gave what I thought was a good answer, along with support for my answers.

[The-Captain]

I don't think you will get hurt by trusting him. It will make him feel good. I won't stand by silently and watch him preach what I know to be untruths and parade what looks for all the world like evangelizing tricks. Not this time. Maybe some other time I will decide he's not worth my energy. And you did seem to be asking for clarity. So I gave what I thought was a good answer, along with support for my answers.

 

Ruby Im glad you're here. You see things I dont, and if anything you make me reevaluate things in a different light. Good answers, support and clarity, I couldnt ask for more.

 

My problem is that I end up agreeing with a bit of what damm near everyone says if they come across tactfully.

[Antlerman]

Maybe Antlerman will swing by so he can better explain were Im going with this by saying "Im a better Christian, now than I ever was when I believed in God". Or whatever he says to that effect.

Here I am. Say, I said "I am". Is this proof of my divinity? That's great to see you quote that. How I put it is that 'I'm more a Christian now that I'm not one, than I ever was when I was one'. The context I usually mean is that the underlying message of faith gets lost in the doctrines of faith. Literalism kills God. Literalsim is God's worst enemy, - including the word "God" itself.

 

I'm going to try to catch up on this thread when I've got time tommorow, but wanted to say from what I've read of Debtor's posts, I hope he sticks around awhile. I'd enjoy a conversation with him. I respect his thoughts so far. I understand what he's saying.

[The-Captain]

Here I am. Say, I said "I am". Is this proof of my divinity? That's great to see you quote that. How I put it is that 'I'm more a Christian now that I'm not one, than I ever was when I was one'. The context I usually mean is that the underlying message of faith gets lost in the doctrines of faith. Literalism kills God. Literalsim is God's worst enemy, etc.

 

I'm going to try to catch up on this thread when I've got time tommorow, but wanted to say from what I've read of Debtor's posts, I hope he sticks around awhile. I'd enjoy a conversation with him. I respect his thoughts so far. I understand what he's saying.

 

Ah thats how its said, not to quote/thought steal but I've sort of adopted that as a goal if not a present state. That was my biggest issue with xianity, never being able to exceed bronze age morality, I feel that is true damnation for man.

 

I agree I hope she sticks around, should be some good conversation.

 

BTW Morgan do you wonder, like I do, why everyone assumes you're a guy?

 

Edit: I really should stop de-railing and save my ranting for PMs

[R. S. Martin]

My problem is that I end up agreeing with a bit of what damm near everyone says if they come across tactfully.

 

That makes you a likable person. There, do we get the smile turned right-side up again?

[Kratos]

Ruby,

 

Read it again and more slowly this time. I said that the information that the OP gave about what was written about Gilgermesh and about Noah took place before recorded history. Even you would admit that this is what these stories claim. I did not say that a flood took place in recorded history as you claim. My point would be clear to any unbiased observor that we do not know what happened back then so must hypothesis about them.

 

You really make me much more thoughtful on the way I answer than I really am and shaming the Doc for believing that what I said is what I meant is just wrong.

 

I think you might check into what a persecution complex is because you seem a bit paranoid. We Christians are really not plotting to get you. We have plenty on our plates just living our own lives day by day to devise such devious schemes.

 

John

[Grandpa Harley]

What can I say, Im a trusting sort

 

IF I'd ever been not cynical and ancient, I'd say you reminded me of me at that age... as it is you remind me of me as I'd have liked to have been if I'd ever not been cynical and ancient...

 

I think that's a complement... I may have just declared Jihad...

[Grandpa Harley]

I think you might check into what a persecution complex is because you seem a bit paranoid. We Christians are really not plotting to get you. We have plenty on our plates just living our own lives day by day to devise such devious schemes.

 

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing man he didn't exist...

 

 

Trussst in meeeee..... jussst in meeeee.....

[SWIM]

Ruby,

 

Read it again and more slowly this time. I said that the information that the OP gave about what was written about Gilgermesh and about Noah took place before recorded history. Even you would admit that this is what these stories claim. I did not say that a flood took place in recorded history as you claim. My point would be clear to any unbiased observor that we do not know what happened back then so must hypothesis about them.

 

John

 

Maybe YOU should read your own post "more slowly".

 

If multi stories of a "flood" appear in different parts of the world at differnt times, there is NO WAY noah and company were the ONLY survivors. And no way it covered the whole world, if others survived here and there.

 

Totally debunks the authority of the OT...

 

DOH!