Just curious how you would know Noah's story was made from these others. How is it not possible these are "changed" stories of Noah essentially changed a little through time as of course it would have been transferred verbally or with none too very little "written/documented" information on such a matter due too lack of technology or ways of keeping track of such things in that day and age?

And also curious why you specifically deem Noah's story to be "newer" then these other possible off branches? How is it possible to have precise dating too when each of these accounts occurred in relation too the ancient documents/references we have of them? Of course carbon dating for the documents in themselves, but were/are they dated on when the flood actually occurred?

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/worldwide-flood-evidence/

May be a "biased" site if you will. But the evidences included inside the site can not possibly be "biased".

The evidence might not be biased, but the interpretation of the evidence certainly is. If I wanted to invest the time, I could debunk every one of the items on their list. Since I really don't care to invest that much time on it, I'll just explain how their conclusion is incorrect on item #1:

The presence of fossils of sea creatures found at high altitudes is not the result of a worldwide flood. They are the result of plate tectonics. The plates colliding with each other formed mountains, like this:


As a result, some land mass that had been underwater jutted up out of the water. Thus, the fossils of sea creatures at high altitudes is not the result of the water once rising above the mountains, but rather the mountains rising up out of the water.

If you care to, you can easily find explanations for the other incorrect conclusions on their list.

Obviously I don't know it, since I wasn't there. But, that's what I strongly suspect happened. I think that Noah's story was built upon the framework of these other stories because of the fact that the Noah story shares so many similarities with these stories that are much older. It just makes sense to me that, if you have a later story that is very similar to an earlier story, or stories, then the later story is probably copying the earlier ones. It certainly doesn't work the other direction. We have to conclude that either the later story copied the earlier one(s), or we have to conclude that two or more storytellers, living many years apart, independently came up with remarkably similar stories.

While both situations are possible, option #1 is far more likely.

Scholars base their estimates for the time of writing on a number of things; writing style, to name one. Since I'm not a scholar, just a geek amateur when it comes to this sort of thing, there are a few areas where I have to trust that the majority of scholars have a pretty good chance of being fairly close on their estimates on such things. And, the consensus is that stories like the Epic of Gilgamesh are at least several centuries older than Genesis.

Of course, you can speculate about the Noah story being passed down in oral form long before it was written down, in the hopes of pushing it back earlier than EoG, but that would be mere speculation. Besides, I could play that card, too. Perhaps EoG was passed down in oral form long before it was written down, too.

Not only that, it would be pretty reckless to put a whole lot of faith in a story that had been passed down orally for several centuries before being written down, don't you think?

Finally, my opinion that the Noah story is a copy of another older myth fits in well with my overall paradigm that all of these stories are myths, and that that is why God is MIA, as he was never there to begin with.

I understand that's a possibility, not denying it. Just what's the coincidence it happened in multiple areas throughout the entire world at relatively the same time?

Man, you cling to god like a life-raft in every scenario. Like everything must be connected to god and not the slightest possibility that the story of god isn't simply connected to everything else. Let me ask you this, do you still believe in Santa Clause? If not, why? They exist on the same parallel. Santa is around to make sure that children behave throughout the year and god is there to take over and make sure people are relatively good throughout their lives. Santa has parents,mall Santas and a crap-load of advertisements. God has the pope, the Vatican, JW's(door to door god salespeople), priests and a number of other god pushers. It takes a lot more to keep people believing in magical things past the age of 12.

Why make forms of belittling, insulting remarks? The same could be said for you in reverse rolls. Like nothing must be connected to God and not the slightest possibility he exists. So I guess you've ended our discussion here, pointing the conversation into more directly belittling one's belief(s) rather then just posting things that pertain to the op of this thread. Have a pleasant day my friend.

I find it funny how you take it so personal. I've already been through the period in my life in which I took the god thing seriously. I only stopped when I was around 27-28. So yes I have considered his existence for more of my life than I haven't. But when I grew up I started making logical connections/conclusions that dictate that there is NO proof of his existence beyond the stories written by man and the psychological bonds that people have based on those stories. You wouldn't be talking to god if you hadn't heard tales from the bible. You might be talking to yourself but that's about it.

Besides, the god vs. Santa comparison was hardly belittling, it was a perfectly valid comparison. two entities that perform magic (miracles) for pretty much the same ultimate purpose. Oh and you try to claim a difference between magic and miracles but turning water into wine, don't try to tell me that's not magic, it's hardly a miracle like those people NEEDED to get drunk so badly that it was a miracle that awful water was turned into an intoxicant.

No one that I am aware of, other than those arguing in favor of the global flood model, claim that it happened all at once. Quite the contrary.

As a side note, I'd like to point out that the "water-into-wine" trick was borrowed from Greek mythology. The Greek god Dionysus was the god of wine, and some of the legends about him claim that he turned water into wine. It was also claimed by some of his followers that, during feasts in his honor, empty jars sealed in a room within his Temple would be filled with wine when the room was unsealed the next day. (Feast of Elis.)

Oh, and in some of the myths he was a demigod; born of a god (Zeus), and a human mother, Semele. He was also killed, but then rose from the dead.

Worship of Dionysus had also been around for over a thousand years before Jesus came along. (Or, was invented.)

There is no proof that the bible was made up. History taught here in Africa and in any other part of the world has it about the story of how Christianity came about. Saying there's no God would amount to denying the existence of Christ, his followers, the miracles they performed, Prophet Muhammad, etc.
For us all to believe in the existence of evil, and apparitions of all sorts, then there must be one who sits above them all. Whether he's fair, unfair, vindictive or not, that I cannot answer, but he does exist.

And again we fall back on the " you can't prove he doesn't exist" argument. Of course you can't, proving the non-existence of something that doesn't exist is a paradox in itself, especially when you're talking about something on a different plane of existence like a god in heaven.

Also like I've said before, A man named Jesus may have existed, he may have even been crucified but as for all that magical/mystical stuff in the bible, I think it's a load of hooey.

That is true. However, as Cowboy and I already discussed, there is little PROOF of much of anything. That said, there is quite a bit of evidence that it was made up.



There are lots of stories out there about a variety of gods and goddesses. It doesn't mean that they're true. It doesn't mean that they're false, either. I admit that. All we can do is to examine the available evidence and make our own determination as to what seems the most likely to be true.



Please read the last several pages of this thread, as well as the "Extra-Biblical proof of Jesus' Resurrection?" thread, and you will see that the paucity of solid evidence for Christ and the miracles that he supposedly performed were central to the discussion.



While I would agree that most of us believe in the existence of evil, belief in apparitions is hardly universal. It also does not logically follow that IF apparitions are real, then there "must be one who sits above them all." For example, we humans obviously exist, yet there is no one human who sits above us all.



That is the point of this thread. Lazarus contends that, based upon the observable evidence, if God does exist, he is NOT a loving god. I agree with his assertion, and have offered some examples from the Bible of loutish behavior on God's part to add to his case. Not that I think that everything in the Bible is true, mind you, but most apologists do, so I think it's fair to use such examples to make the point to them. I certainly don't think that the God described in the Bible is a loving god.



I respectfully request that you provide solid evidence to support this assertion. While you're at it, please provide some solid evidence that "he" is actually a "HE."

There's no known culture that has not made reference at one time or the other to spirit beings. I therefore maintain that belief in evil and apparitions is universal. That said, could you please draw my attention to a group of people (a country, organization, etc) without a leader/head/etc? The animal world inclusive.

Not commenting on his loving nature was diliberate. But let's look at this, do you being a loving and caring father not punish your children when necessary, even though you know they'll hurt? Isn't that why it's called punishment? If you were to defend your child or relative against an attack, and you did in the process inflict pain on the intruder, does that make you not loving?

I'm African, and here in africa, there's a show of supernatural powers. God exists because I've seen him at work several times when his name had been invoked. I don't think they all happened by chance. He's been called upon to counter supernatural powers, to do the unbelievable. I have seen it, and I believe. It's not magic. You've got some great men of God yonder. Do your in depth investigation about their miracles through Christ.

Is he a "HE"? The answer is a BIG "NO". It's just allusion to man being the head. It is stated in the Bible that God is not a man. The same reason Christ is referred to as the Groom, and we his followers, the bride.

Sure there is, Donald Trump XD!



If I was a father, punishment would come in the form of taking away smartphones for a week, not eternal damnation. There's a bit of a gap in your comparison there...




That comparison is also invalid. For it to be valid then there would have to be a bunch of different gods that rule over spirits in different regions. Jokes aside there is no one human that rules over all humans.

We aren't punished. We are rewarded. There is no eternal "damnation". There is however "eternal death". That is the end for all of us unless we receive eternal life through Jesus Christ. Eternal life is a gift.

I find that you keep getting caught up in minor differences. Magic, miracle; Santa, God; Damnation, death. If you do not accept the unlikely existence of a god you are damned to an eternity of non-existence. Tell me that's not god being a dick "you don't believe I exist, now you don't exist, LULZ!". God is like the world's biggest troll.

If I was a father, punishment would come in the form of taking away smartphones for a week, not eternal damnation. There's a bit of a gap in your comparison there...




That comparison is also invalid. For it to be valid then there would have to be a bunch of different gods that rule over spirits in different regions. Jokes aside there is no one human that rules over all humans.

What I meant is that there's always a head in a group. The "head" may have come about by selection or election, yet there'd be head. It's also applicable in the spiritual realm. And asking if there are gods for different regions, yes. Maybe not delineated like ours. As have been taught, they have designations. The Devil's a god too. Now, when there's a show of powers, the ultimate power supercedes. Not to further the statement, I agree with you that no one human rule over all humans.

I draw the curtain here. I'd only read but won't comment. It's only God who can convince a man as he did to Saul. May he make that grace available.

Magic and miracles aren't the same thing, Santa and God aren't the same thing, damnation and death aren't the same thing.... what minor differences am I not seeing? As there are no "minor" differences among the mentioned, as they are not the same thing, there is only major differences.

Again, everyone is headed to an eternity of non-existence unless they accept Jesus' gift of eternal life. People aren't "damned" for not believing. Yes Jesus says "Deny me before man I will deny you before the father". But that is not "damning" anyone. Jesus will only let the one's that know him into Heaven.

That's a load of horse crap though. No one "know[s]" Jesus unless they believe everything they read in ancient storybooks and even then they still don't "know" him, they only know from what they've read since there's no current day proof. How's this for a theory; your god did exist but he's dead and we're all damned to an eternity in the grave regardless.



I agree with you on that much I suppose.. I'm waiting....