To: wildwood
there are LOTS of stories in LOTS of cultures about a great flood. they only serve to affirm the biblical account. Which they do very nicely, since they are thousands of years older than the bible.
Which one copied which?
Blind faith or reason?
So9
6 posted on
03/19/2004 11:06:29 AM PST by
Servant of the 9
(Screwing the Inscrutable or is it Scruting the Inscrewable?)
To: Servant of the 9
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone "knows" how old the bible is.
8 posted on
03/19/2004 11:10:27 AM PST by
ambrose
("I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" - John F. al-Query)
To: Servant of the 9
well, i dunno. i will ASK God when i GET there... you find out wherever YOU are going and don't let me know.
9 posted on
03/19/2004 11:10:40 AM PST by
wildwood
To: Servant of the 9
"Blind faith or reason?"
Perhaps "Faith or Blind Reason?"
30 posted on
03/19/2004 12:10:03 PM PST by
TheDon
(John Kerry, self proclaimed war criminal, Democratic Presidential nominee)
To: Servant of the 9
All of these stories remained in the oral tradition for centuries before they were written down, so it's impossible to tell which is "oldest." I agree that the proliferation of stories about a flood provides evidence that there was a flood. Personally, I see no reason to not believe what the Bible says about it. The Bible has a better track record for truth than any other source I've ever come across. At least in my life.
32 posted on
03/19/2004 12:25:30 PM PST by
twigs
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson