Message #45509

[Kilika]

Yeah, definitely a hit piece. But then it's the daily mail.

All these claims of earlier mentions of a flood I believe just lends credibility to the bible. Think about it, for MANY years after the flood, as the population grew, knowledge of the flood would be common, and would spread with the people as they spread out and started different communities, most of which ended up not being Hebrews or Jews, but turned to other gods, and thus they developed their own stories to justify their existence and try to gain credibility. So it stands to reason they had to develop their own explanations for the flood, Noah and who he was, etc., seeing they departed from following the Hebrew God. On the contrary, I see those tablets, the Gilgamesh stone, and even the variations found in the false gospels of the Gnostics as part of the vast evidence that the flood in fact did happen, just as so many different cultures say it did. The details aren't that important initially, because the admitting by so many different cultures that a flood happened I think is enough.