And I am pointing out that any claim that the text is completely literaly immediately takes you into the realm of mythology, not science.
There is not one chance in a gazillion that the bible is 'the unerring word of god', in my opinion.
I don't believe the myth of biblical accuracy, so when you use that myth as 'evidence' for something I have nothing else left to add to the discussion. You're now discussing mythology, not archaeology or science.
So other than some story written about the event by men 6,000 years later, do you have any comment about the flood the story mentions?
I agree but the article and the scientists are attempting to explain the physical trigger of that event. Underlying their claim is the idea that the Noah story has some basis in an actual historical event. Do you believe that most myths have a basis in history ? If you don't then you should object to the premise of the scientists at the outset.
There is not one chance in a gazillion that the bible is 'the unerring word of god', in my opinion.
Personally I find myself open for either interpretation. I come to the text with an open mind and try not to rule out anything. When the text seems to contradict my sense of what could be I question my premises and often arrive at a fuller explanation of the text. If you happen to read my responses to physicist you will get a sense of what happened to me regarding the text of the description of the "Sea". I would have been perfectly ok with the idea that PI was being approximated but I challenged myself to read the text and see if there were not something else going on. When I did that the text that described a cup and a lilly blossom jumped out at me. The idea that the measurements of the rim were separate from the measurements of the body gave me a fuller interpretation of the text.
On an unrelated note my literal reading of Genesis 1 says that the world isn't 6000 years old but rather 5 1/2 days old. We are in the middle of the 6th day.
I don't believe the myth of biblical accuracy, so when you use that myth as 'evidence' for something I have nothing else left to add to the discussion. You're now discussing mythology, not archaeology or science.
I don't hold to biblical accuracy either but I haven't ruled it out. However it becomes somewhat of an issue in the present case when attempting to compare because it is always an issue when doing any biblical reading.
So other than some story written about the event by men 6,000 years later, do you have any comment about the flood the story mentions?
I don't think the flood being mentioned is the Noah or Giglamesh flood. I would expect the flood that is the source of the myths was more sudden and more devastating. If it were not, then as soon as peoples from other lands not very distant were contacted the story wouldn't hold water.
I wouldn't rule out that ONE of the Black Sea floods wasn't a part of a larger flood that is the source.