The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: That Is

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Have you considered... (see in situ)

That Is of the most immediate considerations one should make. And it is exactly the point. There is no doubt that a deluge myth, story, tale was an extant tradition among the peoples of the Levant/Ancient Near East. The scholars who have spent their lives in this in large numbers agree that it is most likely that the writers of the hebrew narrative derived and adapted from the earlier ones to bolster their cultural and religious identity.

The more ancient versions, as attested by the age(s) of the texts and fragments are not the hebrew hero. One could consider the other versions as adaptations of Noah if the hebrew was precedent. It was not. On the evidence, it is not sound to assert that the biblical version is accurate history.

And again -- I have tried to repeat that this is not to slam the bible, and that it does not tear it down. It just means we can gain from it differently than boxing it into literal record in every instance.