Need help in understanding a paragraph.

[The Crimson Universe]

I don't know if this is the right place to post about historical stuff. But anyway here it goes.
I was reading this book where the author says that, there was this great flood that took place around 4000 BC in Mesopotamia (as per archaeologists).

Now here comes the difficult part.

The author says that a certain semitic nomadic tribe had NOT reached that place (Mesopotamia) at 4000 BC, when the flood occured.

Then the author says ... And so, due to this reason, the nomadic tribes could not have survived this flood later to give their eyewitness testimony to it.

My question is ... If they didn't reach the place of flood in the first place, then how could they have not survived the flood.

 

[Valjean]

This was a local flood in Mesopotamia?
Why would a nomadic tribe in the area necessarily have been killed?

 

[Harel13]

I don't know if this is the right place to post about historical stuff. But anyway here it goes.
I was reading this book where the author says that, there was this great flood that took place around 4000 BC in Mesopotamia (as per archaeologists).

Now here comes the difficult part.

The author says that a certain semitic nomadic tribe had NOT reached that place (Mesopotamia) at 4000 BC, when the flood occured.

Then the author says ... And so, due to this reason, the nomadic tribes could not have survived this flood later to give their eyewitness testimony to it.

My question is ... If they didn't reach the place of flood in the first place, then how could they have not survived the flood.

The author is saying that since those tribes hadn't yet migrated to that area of the world, they could not have witnessed the flood and survived to tell the tale. They might have survived it, but as they weren't in the area, they couldn't have known about it to pass it on as a survivor's eyewitness account.

 

[The Crimson Universe]

Thanks Harel

 

[Subduction Zone]

This was a local flood in Mesopotamia?
Why would a nomadic tribe in the area necessarily have been killed?

It sounds vaguely like this article:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

 

[George-ananda]

I don't know if this is the right place to post about historical stuff. But anyway here it goes.
I was reading this book where the author says that, there was this great flood that took place around 4000 BC in Mesopotamia (as per archaeologists).

Now here comes the difficult part.

The author says that a certain semitic nomadic tribe had NOT reached that place (Mesopotamia) at 4000 BC, when the flood occured.

Then the author says ... And so, due to this reason, the nomadic tribes could not have survived this flood later to give their eyewitness testimony to it.

My question is ... If they didn't reach the place of flood in the first place, then how could they have not survived the flood.

The way I take it, the author is just saying they did not 'survive the flood' because they weren't there in the first place.

 

[Lyndon]

When actually they SURVIVED the flood because they weren't there

 

[Thief]

if salt water covers the land
most crops won't grow
famine sets in

but hey.....

 

[Estro Felino]

It surely spesks of the Akkadians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

if salt water covers the land
most crops won't grow
famine sets in

but hey.....

What are you talking about?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The way I take it, the author is just saying they did not 'survive the flood' because they weren't there in the first place.

So, I guess I survived it, too.

Shoot, we all did! Hurray!

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, I guess I survived it, too.

Shoot, we all did! Hurray!

You also survived the far large floods of the Channeled Scablands. And all of humanity of course survived the Flood of Noah since it never happened. Isn't that neat how things work out?