Oh--so after surviving this flood, the survivors simply forgot to write it down, and only later their descendents cobbled it together, which explains all the discrepancies...yet, you posted a chart "proving" the consistencies.
These folks simply sauntered away from the ark--having been the only survivors of the human race--and, well, they had lots of other things to worry about, so they didn't bother recording what happened, leaving that to others down the line to piece together from, uh, STORIES that came down from hundreds and then thousands of years--as you admit, in your own words.
So these stories--which could be about any flood, and don't include the very specific details in the Bible--somehow support the Bible story...but you yourself have admitted they're not consistent.
So the fact that the stories aren't consistent proves the Noah's Ark story is true; and the fact that the stories are NOT consistent ALSO proves the Noah's Ark story is true.
Talk about ROFL!
I am assuming that the humans on the ark were white, black, asian, polynesian, hispanic, mongolian, mestizo, nunavut, melanesian, etc....
Because they sired the entire planet.,
Oh, and don't mention the "E" word!
Still waiting to hear how the sloth and koala made it home and all the snakes, etc.
LOL
I said no such thing. My point about stories passed from generation to generation (whether in writing or not) still stands. If you can't understand that some details could be altered on the way down, then you are willfully ignorant. Were you absent from school the day the teacher did this very experiment by whispering something in one kid's ear to see what that would be by the time it got to the other end of the room? If so, I'll tell you how it goes. The last thing said is a bit different than what was first said.