It matters not which version is 'accepted'. Fact is that the original storyteller could not possibly have known but a small part of the 'whole Earth'...

Given the technology of the time.

So any account would only pertain to that which the person could observe.

Which is why you also have accounts of flooding in the Americas... but from a different Tribe than Noah/Gilgamech

and also survived.

It but covered perhaps 2/3rds of the planet.

Since the People of Austriala also have history to that time.

Many more than Noah survived.

adam and eve were a very pure bloodline..no genetic dna problems could occur in such a pure bloodline yet...

wouldn't Cain murdering his only brother Abel without justification imply a genetic defect?

Cain may have been the son of the Naga serpent man. The forbidden fruit was most likely infidelity. Both Adam and Eve had sexual relations with the Naga serpent man.

Also men having sex with other men was pretty common 2000 years ago. Nobody thought much about it.

But apparently Eve got pregnant and that was when Cain was conceived.

even though the story can't be found in the bible, for the sake of argument let's assume that Cain was the son of the Naga Serpent Man.. what were some of the genetic genes or traits that Cain and/or Mankind inherited from Naga The Serpent Man?

Even history shows how the Abrahamic religion started and that it stole it's ideas,and peeps still today believe God did what he did.Makes no sense.

Ironically, as it seems..
I'm part Indian.

Now while the following is only what I've been told by my grandparents, you will soon denote into my brief story.. It's much like the origin of the Bible. A hand me down through generation upon generation.

I take you to a place called the Old Crow Flats.

Don't know where that is? I'm getting there.

Story goes like this..

Centuries (yes, centuries, as in well before AD deep into BC), we will say over 20,000 years ago; my 'clan' lived somewhere in the Asia's, I believe he mentioned NE or maybe its was more to the central? Not sure precisely.

Anyway, as some sort of tensions rose in Asia itself, my descendants began to flock further north, looking to escape the 'growing madness' (make note, my great grandfather never actually mentioned what this madness entailed) and eventually these people found a way to cross over into a new and almost abandoned land mass.

They began to settle around a place called the Old Crow Flats.

Over time, their population grew and they began to flock even further south, and further... and eventually they broke off into separate nations, tribes, whatever you want to call them; but they remained in their former and old style of ways. Some of this cultures died off, some flourished, and as time passed, Vikings began to massacre them for food, clothing, supplies; raped their women, etc.

So what is the relevance of this story?

In 1492, Christopher Columbus stumbled upon these people and believed he was in India and called them, 'Indians'.

My 'ancestors' are part of the group we presently refer to as the Aboriginals; the original and 'first' known settlers of Old Crow Flats which is located in a place we now call, 'Canada'.

Scientists have uncovered, since those days, fossils and the likes that date back almost, if not over, 23,000 years.

Yes, 23,000 years ago.

Obviously, I don't know if any of his story held any firm truth within it; however, if you read up on the Aboriginals and after doing so feel there is little reason to doubt these people did in fact exist; it would be far more than just 'odd' that these people never witnessed any sort of thing known as the 'Great Flood'.

..furthermore..

A distant Wampanoag legend once said, '..to the East the sky burned and the sun disappeared for a moment and once the sun had reappeared the tides rolled in far higher than ever before..we took such as an omen. Something, in the future, maybe near, maybe far; but something was going to come our way..'

Fancy that.

An Indian tribe, and the same tribe who was denoted for helping said pilgrims, noticed 'the sky burn' which indicates the validity of a meteor. The fact the tides 'rose higher than ever before' indicates the 'tsunami' or massive tidal wave that rocked Europe around that time.

..and the bad omen they spoke of?

Well, we do remember what happened to the Indians, do we not? o.O

However, you don't have to believe me.

It was, after all, just the story of a 88 year old great grandfather when I was a wee little lad. And me, being the little boy who loved carnage, never forgot it. (Well, most of it anyway. I can't give as much detail as he did.)

Wow, impressive that a "non-believer" actually admits the "possibility" of a great flood.

Possible, sure. But it didn't happen.

The amount of geologic evidence is staggering, and it shows a story going back before man existed of small events located to regions, not the entire earth.

The ice caps have melted in the past, and waters have risen, but never enough to cover even a majority of the current day land mass.

Its just a non-starter if you examine the evidence, ALL of the evidence, in its totality without cherry picking.

Taking Biblical stories seriously is not supported by science and has been shown these stories are just rehashed anyways from prior generations and neighboring cultures.

In order to accept a world wide flood occurred one must Cherry pick evidence, and ignore contraindications, and really just make stuff up.

The various explanations for a world wide flood have never accounted for how that much water was available quickly enough to account for flood characteristics. Hovind tried to say that the water was from space, in a giant ice shell, hilarious.

If one tries to go the whole ice cap melting global warming explanation then they must account for the fact that ice melts gradually, it takes LOOOOOOONG periods of time, it would have taken generations to account for even with the most rapid temperature changes and would not represent the story being told.

Really nothing in science can offer a feasible explanation for such a story.

Its soo much easier to just realize that whoever wrote the bible was either referencing something local based on the technology of the time, or just retelling a tale of someone doing just that in generations past.

In this light it all makes sense, but when you try to take a literal approach you end up with dozens of unexplained factors, and cannot make sense of the geological record at all.

That is the death knell of a given hypothesis and why it isnt taken seriously from a scientific perspective.

Science and faith may not fight like cats and dogs dependent on what you think faith is, but science and the bible go together like oil and water.

Wow, impressive that a "non-believer" actually admits the "possibility" of a great flood.


Those "holes" you mention are called the "fountains of the deep" in the Bible if I'm not mistaken...


That, and if you actually study the Hebrew words used for our English translation, you may find that the "great flood" never specifies an entire, global flood.

So we agree there is just no reason to take anything in the bible as accurate at all.

Its possible the writers were: clueless, lying, stealing stories, making stories up as moral lessons ect, but no real reasons to assume any historical value and especially no reason to think any scientific value.

You can just keep going back further and further to prior tellers of these stories and keep finding differing takes on a ancient society with little in the way of scientific knowledge.

Do you know what intelectual honesty is?

In NO WAY! do I agree with you, PERIOD!!!


Try applying the scientific principal for once. Read it yourself, do the math, take notes. And stop assuming that everyone takes it litteraly just because your stance relies on that.

You can just keep going back further and further to prior tellers of these stories and keep finding differing takes on a ancient society with little in the way of scientific knowledge.

So what are you claiming?

Are you claiming that the Bible has scientific knowledge within it? That it can inform us historically?
Are you saying that your Hebrew source of interpretation is better than any other and has some established foundation that cannot be found in earlier texts with essentially the same stories?

You do not agree with this? Even tho we have examples to show this is accurate? Even tho the loose metaphorical nature of the bible makes it no more a historical or scientific work than Dr Sues?

Just wondering what you think Peter . . .

LOL!


OK, what I think....


I think you will continue to deflect from the issue at hand.


"That, and if you actually study the Hebrew words used for our English translation, you may find that the "great flood" never specifies an entire, global flood."


Deal with that 1st, then we'll see if you can be intelectually honest...

..so, basically..

Most-to-all the Christians we know are complete and total ******** morons, because none of them read/pursue the Hebrew heritage of the Bible; therefore, making them totally delusional, moronic, and gullible.

Least, that's what I'm getting from the fact you keep putting this statement out there..

..as if it held any value considering we speak of the general census.

Interesting.

*continues on his journey through the threads*

Exactly.

Honestly peter there is just not much for me to care about one way or the other.

What you are saying is that the current Biblical account of the flood story is wrong . . . . ok.

It wasn't some massive flood that required all the surviving species on earth to be saved by a big boat and Noah didn't repopulate the earth . . . ok.

You have to realize this agrees with my overall view that the Bible is just a bunch of goat herders talking about there favorite bed time stories, so your not going to see me working up a sweat to disagree.

I think you will continue to deflect from the issue at hand.

Ok thats an interesting type.....so then i'll give a little and assume the floods happened in the middle east and thats it,still theres the question,why did God inform these people of his existence but not everyone else,including the tribes in the western hemisphere?It's obvious what my answer would be.Also he punished these people cause they disobeyed him,yet overseas they didn't even know he existed.Then he didn't let freewill happen when he flooded the middle east but he let the western hemisphere have freewill and worship false Gods before him?As i have stated it's all FUBAR.

It matters not which version is 'accepted'. Fact is that the original storyteller could not possibly have known but a small part of the 'whole Earth'...

Given the technology of the time.

So any account would only pertain to that which the person could observe.

Which is why you also have accounts of flooding in the Americas... but from a different Tribe than Noah/Gilgamech

and also survived.

It but covered perhaps 2/3rds of the planet.

Since the People of Austriala also have history to that time.

Many more than Noah survived.