How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[CLee421]

I seriously doubt it.

...you have that right but I'm not sure what you base that on or why it's relevant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I tend to side with Jews on their knowledge of their own history book.

I seriously doubt it.

...you have that right but I'm not sure what you base that on ....

I base it on decades as a Jew engaging Christian fundamentalists.

... or why it's relevant.

I agree, which begs the question: why did you raise it?

 

[CLee421]

I base it on decades as a Jew engaging Christian fundamentalists.

I agree, which begs the question: why did you raise it?

Jew by blood? Practicing Jew? I am under the impression you don't believe there was a flood?

You said it was a faith based claim when actually I was just saying not really I just believe .. "your people"

 

[nPeace]

Use your own common sense, then. Every animal, food for every animal -- consider the logistics. Ken Ham, I hear, was planning to house a small zoo on his Arc Encounter, but found the idea impractable -- even with a large staff, electricity, plumbing, &c. He had to settle for a stuffed menagerie.
Genesis 1:14 - 16, Genesis1:20.
Now you're changing nature? positing a whole different ecology? Talk about changing facts to fit the narrative....
You could just as well posit that lions, elephants and hippos were, at that time, only three inches tall and photosynthesized.
You can always come up with alternative scenarios, not discounted in the Bible, that fit the narrative, but seriously -- is this a reasonable argument?
You keep citing the Bible. You must realize by now that we don't consider the Bible an authoritative source, largely because the narrative it presents is so wildly at odds with observations and known facts. I could just as reasonably cite opposing texts from the Quran, Gita or Guru Granth. What makes the Bible more authoritative than these, or any other texts?

We don't present "ridiculous arguments" because we don't read the Bible. We present reasoned arguments based on observation, empirical testing and known science. We don't present "our own ideas." We present the conclusions the evidence necessitates. We have no preconceived ideas or agenda. We go where the evidence leads.
How is citing the Bible any more authoritative than citing Harry Potter or The Hobbit? At least these are monographs, with known authors and provenance.
Can you present a reasoned argument for the flood story without any Biblical support?
So what does it mean? You seem to be twisting the meaning to fit a preconceived idea, Are you saying that the Bible is using "kind" as a technical, scientific term; that it doesn't mean what it seems to say?
How is this not a priori "reasoning?"
When all else fails you invoke a Cartesian epistemology? You must realize this is unworkable. Requiring this degree of confidence would make everything dubious.
But there are no primary sources, nor does the Torah claim any authorship, nor are there primary sources for the existence of a Moses -- or a Jesus, for that matter.
No! Not even weak -- nonexistent!
There are no primary sources, nor is there any evidence. The only witnesses who survived the event left no extant writings -- or any evidence that they even existed, for that matter.
present some and we'll get right on it.

Right. So now you seem to be imputing you own ideas, and what you consider common sense.

You haven't concluded that by common sense, did you?
Genesis 1
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creep upon the
earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.

Of course. The evidence leads us to creation, doesn't it? Where does it lead you?

Kind of dog - List of dog breeds - Wikipedia
Kind of cat - List of cat breeds - Wikipedia
Kind of beetle - Beetle - Wikipedia

 

[CLee421]

Regarding Ken Ham and his Ark Encounter ... there are some live animals there. His plan was always to create the creatures Noah had because - they would have looked different then. So you go there and you see the "first" dog that lead to all our breeds - and so on with each "kind" of animal.

 

[Valjean]

Isn't the Bible considered evidence? Are archaeological findings void and null because they are not digging up bones for evolutionary support - in this case?

Evidence for some things, yes, but not the things it's usually cited to support. It's self contradictory, ambiguous and it's not historically or factually reliable.

There is much evidence in archaeological findings that support the writings, even in the book of Genesis. I'll put together that information soon.

This is all we ask.

You probably should just start another thread about debunking the Bible since that appears to be your primary goal.

But it's you who keeps citing it as evidence. You put it on the table, not us. We're merely responding to the 'evidence' you presented. How did you expect we'd address it?

Can you explain to me how you think this product of life began?

Unfortunately, it's not yet completely understood -- though I'd bet there's a lot more known about it than you realize.
Are you proposing our ignorance as evidence that life didn't arise by natural means?

I think we both agree that life began, at some point. Our disagreement is over the mechanisms involved.
Your story involves no mechanism, just a magical agent. We claim magic has never been observed, and that things occur through non-intentional interactions governed by observable, testable laws of physics or chemistry.
Which version seems more credible?

How do know this? You, as an atheist, I assume don't accept the existence of God or a Creator, so how are you so confident in knowing that parts of the Bible are not meant to be read literally?

Are you claiming your omniscient, omnipotent God created an overly wordy, self-contradictory, ambiguous, demonstrably inaccurate book, and thought it would be universally and unquestioningly accepted? And why did He not preserve it as a primary source on some durable substrate, rather than transmitting it in fragments; copies of copies of copies, with frequent inconsistencies?
If some of the biblical claims were reported in today's papers, wouldn't you expect an immediate eruption of public skepticism? Why would you think the same wild claims, transmitted by hearsay from person to person; copies on copies, over thousands of years, would be reliable?

 

[CLee421]

Are you claiming your omniscient, omnipotent God created an overly wordy, self-contradictory, ambiguous, demonstrably inaccurate book, and thought it would be universally and unquestioningly accepted? And why did He not preserve it as a primary source on some durable substrate, rather than transmitting it in fragments; copies of copies of copies, with frequent inconsistencies?
If some of the biblical claims were reported in today's papers, wouldn't you expect an immediate eruption of public skepticism? Why would you think the same wild claims, transmitted by hearsay from person to person; copies on copies, over thousands of years, would be reliable?[/QUOTE]

It's not complicated once you are able to just trust Him.

If God wanted us to believe Him because of some papers He would have done that. But not only are the books/letters and historical evidence reason enough there is much more. God wants us to have faith in Him - not in writing from ancestors alone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Multiple flood stories around the world actually are a testament that one actually happened (word of mouth to the grandkids and so on)

The geological evidence is overwhelming. Countless creatures encased in mud and evidence shows a quick death.. now our fossils. The only thing catastrophic enough and fast enough to produce those specific results is a flood.

Why don't you believe it?

Multiple flood stories are only evidence that many areas get flooded. Since people need water to live they tend to live in ares that get flooded at times. Ironically areas where people rely on floods do not have flood myths. Egypt relies on annual floods for agriculture, They were very close to the Hebrews and yet have no flood myths. Nor do the Japanese who also generally rely on floods for their rice fields.

And no, the fossil evidence tells us that there was no flood. The flood predicts one thin layer of fossils. Not thousands upon thousands of feet of them. Much more life is preserved in fossils than could have lived on the Earth at one time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that as the ice melted it created a lot of moisture that caused a lot of rain

But it didn't. We can date the ice by various different means. It has been there longer than man has been on the Earth. The fact that ice floats alone disproves the flood myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not complicated once you are able to just trust Him.

If God wanted us to believe Him because of some papers He would have done that. But not only are the books/letters and historical evidence reason enough there is much more. God wants us to have faith in Him - not in writing from ancestors alone.

So your version of God plays hide and seek and lies by planting false evidence?

 

[nPeace]

The bible itself is only a literary evidence, that at some points in time different people wrote and edit certain books.

But if you talking about certain events taking places in the bible, as if they were historical events, then you must go outside the bible to find the evidences.

And in this case, the bible isn’t a reliable source.

Take for instance, the flood, you state that letters have been passed down from Noah’s time to Moses. All I am getting your say so of such sources existing.

Unless you can present such letters, you are just making excuses or you are making it up. Neither ones are credible unless you do have such Bronze Age correspondents.

There are no Hebrew writings in the Bronze Age (that if Moses even existed).

The oldest evidences of Hebrew writings are the Zayit Stone and the Gezer Calendar. The inscriptions on these were both written in 10th century BCE, during early Iron Age, not Bronze Age. And neither inscriptions contain anything relating to the bible.

The oldest existence of writings concerning the bible, as I have already stated before (in my other replies), is the scrolls (known as the “Silver Scrolls”) found in cave/tomb, Ketef Hinnom, near Jerusalem. Both the tomb and artefacts found, including that fragments of the scrolls, have been dated around 600 BCE, which mean before the Fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple.

That no earlier texts from the bible than the Silver Scrolls, in centuries before Ketef Hinnom, make it very hard to say there are evidences to Moses or to Noah, when there are no literary evidences contemporary to Moses and Noah.

It is very late now, so I don’t have time to find the relevant links for you, but you can easily looked up yourself, by typing any of the following:

• Ketef Hinnom
• Silver Scrolls
• Zayit Stone
• Gezer Calendar

Your focus is on the Bronze Age... Why?

I hope you are not like some who complain about copying and pasting. I do this in order to highlight particular points I want to make - rather than linking a whole page that does not particularly reference my focus.

Bronze Age (Wikipedia)
Bronze Age cultures differed in their development of the first writing. According to archaeological evidence, cultures in Mesopotamia (cuneiform) and Egypt (hieroglyphs) developed the earliest viable writing systems.

Mesopotamia
Main article: Ancient Mesopotamia
In Mesopotamia, the Mesopotamian Bronze Age began about 2900 BC and ended with the Kassite period. The usual tripartite division into an Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age is not used. Instead, a division primarily based on art-historical and historical characteristics is more common. The cities of the Ancient Near East housed several tens of thousands of people. Ur in the Middle Bronze Age and Babylon in the Late Bronze Age similarly had large populations.

The earliest mention of Babylonia appears on a tablet from the reign of Sargon of Akkad in the 23rd century BC. The Amorite dynasty established the city-state of Babylon in the 19th century BC. Over 100 years later, it briefly took over the other city-states and formed the first Babylonian empire during what is also called the Old Babylonian Period. Babylonia adopted the written Semitic Akkadian language for official use. By that time, the Sumerian language
was no longer spoken, but was still in religious use. The Akkadian and Sumerian traditions played a major role in later Babylonian culture, and the region, even under outside rule, remained an important cultural center throughout the Bronze and Early Iron Age.

What would we largely credit with the discovery of ancient kingdoms?
Is it not the Bible?
It is interesting that it is the books of the Bible that led archaeologists on a journey that verifies a historical record that is accurately traced geographically, culturally, and dating.
For example...
Mesopotamian archeology was born through the Biblical record concerning the Babylonian dynasty.

Here is just one reason why the Bible evidently is the most reliable book.

See Babylon
Babylon is the most famous city from ancient Mesopotamia whose ruins lie in modern-day Iraq 59 miles (94 kilometres) southwest of Baghdad. The name is thought to derive from bav-il or bav-ilim which, in the Akkadian language of the time, meant ‘Gate of God’ or `Gate of the Gods’ and `Babylon’ coming from Greek. The city owes its fame (or infamy) to the many references the Bible makes to it; all of which are unfavourable. In the Book of Genesis, chapter 11,

Babylon is featured in the story of The Tower of Babel and the Hebrews claimed the city was named for the confusion which ensued after God caused the people to begin speaking in different languages so they would not be able to complete their great tower to the heavens (the Hebrew word bavel means `confusion’).
Babylon also appears prominently in the biblical books of Daniel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, among others, and, most notably, The Book of Revelation. It was these biblical references which sparked interest in Mesopotamian archaeology and the expedition by the German archaeologist Robert Koldewey who first excavated the ruins of Babylon in 1899 CE.

According to the Bible, descendants of Shem’s son Aram lived mainly in regions from the Lebanon Mountains across to Mesopotamia.
Mesopotamia means between rivers.

Genesis 2:10-14 American Standard Version (ASV)
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth in front of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates

Geographical locations can be traced accurately by archaeologist.

So while scientist continue to debate whether man is out of Africa, or Asia, the Bible gives the true history. It seems sort of in between, doesn't it.

They say the Sumerians were the first known civilization, and who can blame them for that, if that's all they know.

Where did they come from? They don't know. When did they first become a people? They can only speculate.
See Sumer

The Bible fills in the blanks. It's not expected that every single detail in the Bible will be discovered, or excavated. That's not reasonable, is it? However, every single excavation verifies the historical accuracy of the Bible, and the Bible tells us where the civilizations originated.
So when people try to dismiss the flood as a myth, they try to dismiss history, imo.

Where did Egypt come from? Where did Babylon come from?
Without the sons of Noah, you have no history. In fact that's the case right now with skeptics, isn't it? Their history has a huge gap that will never be filled, until they accept the Bible's truth, imo.

It's the same problem with the evolutionist scientists - huge gulfs in their mythical story. The big bang from nothing, and nowhere. Life, but no cause for it.
That truly is a marvel.
For those who trust the Bible though, it's marvelous.

In reality, the flood account in the Bible was not borrowed from the Sumerians. It will only appear that way, to those who erase the history before the Sumerians.

If one reasonable accept that there is a history before the Sumerians, then they would logically ask the question, "Where did the Sumerians get the legend? Did they come up with it off the top of their heads?"

Well maybe we should consider asking Noah's sons. The flood occured before the Sumerians.
The history is found in Geneis 10
8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah: wherefore it is said, Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Jehovah. 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city). 13 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (whence went forth the Philistines), and Caphtorim.

Type Accad in Wikipedia search bar, and see what you get.
Akkadian Empire
Main article: Naram-Sin of Akkad
Manishtushu's son and successor, Naram-Sin (2254–2218 BC), due to vast military conquests, assumed the imperial title "King Naram-Sin, king of the four quarters" (Lugal Naram-Sîn, Šar kibrat 'arbaim), the four quarters as a reference to the entire world. He was also for the first time in Sumerian culture, addressed as "the god (Sumerian = DINGIR, Akkadian = ilu) of Agade" (Akkad), in opposition to the previous religious belief that kings were only representatives of the people towards the gods. He also faced revolts at the start of his reign, but quickly crushed them.

If you check the history of Sumer and Akkad, see where Babylon fits, and its origin.
Here is just one quote from the Cyrus Cylinder
I am Cyrus, king of the universe, the great king, the powerful king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad,

I'd better stop here, because once I get started on Biblical Archeology and history...

It's interesting though that all this is documented as history, and there are people who still try to discredit the Bible.

So I think you are missing a very important piece of history, which could possibly come to light some day, as Archeologist keep digging.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age. The ice age began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]

Ice age - Wikipedia

When the ice melted the great flood began

Did you understand that? We are still in an ice age. And when the most recent glacial period ended sea level rose. It did not flood. Events in the past tend to leave evidence that we can read today.

 

[CLee421]

So your version of God plays hide and seek and lies by planting false evidence?

Haha. No.

Not my version.

I never would've believed myself. I thought all religion was false. For all the reasons I see people post here and elsewhere.

I know a rabbit trail when I see one. I highly doubt I would be someone to convince you. Im just sharing freely - the point of this forum.

 

[Audie]

Right... and what was false and what do you propose is correct?

The mainstream ideas on geological history have been re-examined over recent years and the ideas of layers representing lots of time is illogical.

Fossilized trees shown going through multiple layers (layers that were allegedly supposed to represent millions of years) but...trees go through many of them. Meaning it happened very quickly.

Just because something is taught in a school or widely accepted does not make it true. And your assumption on my knowledge of "any" geology is arrogant. Such a treat - folks like you.

No assumption, you provide the demonstration that
you dont know from geology with every empty
AIG line you parrot.

But it is ok- the more the creationists show
their hand the better.

 

[nPeace]

It's not complicated once you are able to just trust Him.

If God wanted us to believe Him because of some papers He would have done that. But not only are the books/letters and historical evidence reason enough there is much more. God wants us to have faith in Him - not in writing from ancestors alone.

Sounds good. So the heart is involved. he doesn't want stubborn, self acclaimed wise people, which really amounts to arrogant.
Good point.

 

[CLee421]

Multiple flood stories are only evidence that many areas get flooded. Since people need water to live they tend to live in ares that get flooded at times. Ironically areas where people rely on floods do not have flood myths. Egypt relies on annual floods for agriculture, They were very close to the Hebrews and yet have no flood myths. Nor do the Japanese who also generally rely on floods for their rice fields.

And no, the fossil evidence tells us that there was no flood. The flood predicts one thin layer of fossils. Not thousands upon thousands of feet of them. Much more life is preserved in fossils than could have lived on the Earth at one time.

Why does a flood mean one layer? It would have taken a very long time for everything to settle. And there's nothing to support the idea there are more fossils than there could have been creatures. How many do we have living now? We don't even know.

I posted a chart earlier in the thread showing the connections of flood stories all over the ancient world. You can make of it what you will, but beyond fossils is more evidence but you're either going to fight for what you think you know or search for the truth no matter what it is.

There is a really great documentary on Netflix regarding the evidence in earth's landscape. I'll try and find the title for anyone who wants to peek.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your focus is on the Bronze Age... Why?

I hope you are not like some who complain about copying and pasting. I do this in order to highlight particular points I want to make - rather than linking a whole page that does not particularly reference my focus.

When you write a book it makes your supposed points much harder to find. It is best to quote a sentence or two and to link to the source.

Bronze Age (Wikipedia)
Bronze Age cultures differed in their development of the first writing. According to archaeological evidence, cultures in Mesopotamia (cuneiform) and Egypt (hieroglyphs) developed the earliest viable writing systems.

Mesopotamia
Main article: Ancient Mesopotamia
In Mesopotamia, the Mesopotamian Bronze Age began about 2900 BC and ended with the Kassite period. The usual tripartite division into an Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age is not used. Instead, a division primarily based on art-historical and historical characteristics is more common. The cities of the Ancient Near East housed several tens of thousands of people. Ur in the Middle Bronze Age and Babylon in the Late Bronze Age similarly had large populations.

The earliest mention of Babylonia appears on a tablet from the reign of Sargon of Akkad in the 23rd century BC. The Amorite dynasty established the city-state of Babylon in the 19th century BC. Over 100 years later, it briefly took over the other city-states and formed the first Babylonian empire during what is also called the Old Babylonian Period. Babylonia adopted the written Semitic Akkadian language for official use. By that time, the Sumerian language
was no longer spoken, but was still in religious use. The Akkadian and Sumerian traditions played a major role in later Babylonian culture, and the region, even under outside rule, remained an important cultural center throughout the Bronze and Early Iron Age.

What would we largely credit with the discovery of ancient kingdoms?
Is it not the Bible?
It is interesting that it is the books of the Bible that led archaeologists on a journey that verifies a historical record that is accurately traced geographically, culturally, and dating.
For example...
Mesopotamian archeology was born through the Biblical record concerning the Babylonian dynasty.

Here is just one reason why the Bible evidently is the most reliable book.

No, that the Bible got a few things right does not make it "the most reliable book". You are ignoring all of the things that the Bible got wrong.

See Babylon
Babylon is the most famous city from ancient Mesopotamia whose ruins lie in modern-day Iraq 59 miles (94 kilometres) southwest of Baghdad. The name is thought to derive from bav-il or bav-ilim which, in the Akkadian language of the time, meant ‘Gate of God’ or `Gate of the Gods’ and `Babylon’ coming from Greek. The city owes its fame (or infamy) to the many references the Bible makes to it; all of which are unfavourable. In the Book of Genesis, chapter 11,

Babylon is featured in the story of The Tower of Babel and the Hebrews claimed the city was named for the confusion which ensued after God caused the people to begin speaking in different languages so they would not be able to complete their great tower to the heavens (the Hebrew word bavel means `confusion’).
Babylon also appears prominently in the biblical books of Daniel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah, among others, and, most notably, The Book of Revelation. It was these biblical references which sparked interest in Mesopotamian archaeology and the expedition by the German archaeologist Robert Koldewey who first excavated the ruins of Babylon in 1899 CE.

According to the Bible, descendants of Shem’s son Aram lived mainly in regions from the Lebanon Mountains across to Mesopotamia.
Mesopotamia means between rivers.

Genesis 2:10-14 American Standard Version (ASV)
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth in front of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates

Geographical locations can be traced accurately by archaeologist.

So while scientist continue to debate whether man is out of Africa, or Asia, the Bible gives the true history. It seems sort of in between, doesn't it.

If the Bible gives the "true history" then why can't you find any reliable evidence that confirms that? We know there was no Exodus, we know that the flood story is a myth. We know that the Garden of Eden story is myth.

They say the Sumerians were the first known civilization, and who can blame them for that, if that's all they know.

Where did they come from? They don't know. When did they first become a people? They can only speculate.
See Sumer

The Bible fills in the blanks. It's not expected that every single detail in the Bible will be discovered, or excavated. That's not reasonable, is it? However, every single excavation verifies the historical accuracy of the Bible, and the Bible tells us where the civilizations originated.
So when people try to dismiss the flood as a myth, they try to dismiss history, imo.

Where did Egypt come from? Where did Babylon come from?
Without the sons of Noah, you have no history. In fact that's the case right now with skeptics, isn't it? Their history has a huge gap that will never be filled, until they accept the Bible's truth, imo.

It's the same problem with the evolutionist scientists - huge gulfs in their mythical story. The big bang from nothing, and nowhere. Life, but no cause for it.
That truly is a marvel.
For those who trust the Bible though, it's marvelous.

In reality, the flood account in the Bible was not borrowed from the Sumerians. It will only appear that way, to those who erase the history before the Sumerians.

If one reasonable accept that there is a history before the Sumerians, then they would logically ask the question, "Where did the Sumerians get the legend? Did they come up with it off the top of their heads?"

Well maybe we should consider asking Noah's sons. The flood occured before the Sumerians.
The history is found in Geneis 10
8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah: wherefore it is said, Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before Jehovah. 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, 12 and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city). 13 And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14 and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (whence went forth the Philistines), and Caphtorim.

Type Accad in Wikipedia search bar, and see what you get.
Akkadian Empire
Main article: Naram-Sin of Akkad
Manishtushu's son and successor, Naram-Sin (2254–2218 BC), due to vast military conquests, assumed the imperial title "King Naram-Sin, king of the four quarters" (Lugal Naram-Sîn, Šar kibrat 'arbaim), the four quarters as a reference to the entire world. He was also for the first time in Sumerian culture, addressed as "the god (Sumerian = DINGIR, Akkadian = ilu) of Agade" (Akkad), in opposition to the previous religious belief that kings were only representatives of the people towards the gods. He also faced revolts at the start of his reign, but quickly crushed them.

If you check the history of Sumer and Akkad, see where Babylon fits, and its origin.
Here is just one quote from the Cyrus Cylinder
I am Cyrus, king of the universe, the great king, the powerful king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad,

I'd better stop here, because once I get started on Biblical Archeology and history...

It's interesting though that all this is documented as history, and there are people who still try to discredit the Bible.

So I think you are missing a very important piece of history, which could possibly come to light some day, as Archeologist keep digging.

TLDR

Unanswered questions are not evidence for the Bible. At best they would be failures of the Bible. When you rely on refuted myths you end up disproving the Bible yourself.

 

[CLee421]

No assumption, you provide the demonstration that
you dont know from geology with every empty
AIG line you parrot.

But it is ok- the more the creationists show
their hand the better.

Why are we playing a game? Who's gonna win? Hahaha wow this is my first active day on here and it's so funny how people are so rude when forums are supposed to promote free thinking open discussion etc.

It's fine. Nothing new but most people quoting me on here sound like angry teenagers so far.

 

[CLee421]

Actually the Jewish nation "believes that" and I don't talk myself into anything. I try and disprove myself and question myself before accepting anything.

So adorable when people in front of a keyboard think they know you!

Not sure what the hair has to do with this. That's a controversial topic but not relevant here so I'm gonna leave that alone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why does a flood mean one layer? It would have taken a very long time for everything to settle. And there's nothing to support the idea there are more fossils than there could have been creatures. How many do we have living now? We don't even know.

I posted a chart earlier in the thread showing the connections of flood stories all over the ancient world. You can make of it what you will, but beyond fossils is more evidence but you're either going to fight for what you think you know or search for the truth no matter what it is.

There is a really great documentary on Netflix regarding the evidence in earth's landscape. I'll try and find the title for anyone who wants to peek.

The amount of life alive at any one time would only make one thin layer of fossils. If you look outside right now and reduced every bit of life to its hard preservable parts and nothing else you would see a barren wasteland. And please, don't make blanket claims that only demonstrate your ignorance. When you don't know you should ask questions.

In South Africa and a bit into its neighboring countries there is a formation called the Karoo Supergroup. This was an area of deposition for well over 100 million hears and there are by some estimates on the order of 800 billion land animal fossils in that one site alone:

Karoo Supergroup - Wikipedia

Think of 800 billion sheep on the face of the Earth at once (they range from large dinosaur to small lizard) and you only begin to see how much life had to be buried at once with your myth.

And no, your chart only tells us that people who live next to water often get flooded. That is all.