This is a seasonal factor; the dates change as more relics pop up.
But nevertheless, there is no evidence that is known that dates the story to before any religions, as you claimed.
Do you have any evidence anything in the Noah story which can be disproved is disproved - such as historical factors? If not, the report is generally credible aside from a global flood.
I don't think the default position for the claims of a religious document should be 'generally credible' when they are talking about such incredible things.
You inferred special treatment as the agenda here?
No I didn't. I implied that the agenda was to propose the origins of the Israelites were from a family that was close to Yahweh, that the story glorifies Yahweh as a powerful figure and other such things.
'whatever that is' is the point here. You may reject the premise of a God - but not that the text is incorrect of a regional flood.
This thread is not a discussion about whether the flood was global or regional. I couldn't care less about that issue right at this moment. If we accept that it was a regional flood, we are still left with the issue of evidence for this flood.
The evidence I've seen you present, that I specifically take issue with, is that there is no agenda to the flood story which is somehow an indicator of its truth and the claim that the story predates religion, which is an unevidenced claim.
Moral superiority? A host of bad deeds are also listed
quote:
This is the history of the generations of Noach. Noach was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time. Noach walked with God.
nor do the moral laws apply to Jews: the term Jews do not appear in the laws.
That's why I was talking about the Israelites, not the Jews.
Are you not confusing your bibles here about chosen by example [be a light'] and the chosen of 'exclusive kingdom keys' and 'no god but allah'?
No I'm not confusing my bibles.
Choose your facorite chosen and agenda before making such a claim as your reason of proof.
I was just pointing out that there are many possible agendas that can be inferred from the existence of the text. It is not free of agenda.
The report is fantastically and astonishingly accurate aside from a global flood view; no ancient writings quite measure up here.
How do you know it is fantastically and astonishingly accurate? This is not a claim that can be made for historical documents, except in the cases where there happens to be physical evidence to back them up.
So far you've mentioned no physical evidence, just the documents. How do you know these documents are reliable? It seems clear to me the authors had an agenda, and there is no reason to think that agenda is to tell the complete truth.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.