Except, as the article mentions, I think it likely that the flooding of the region took thousands of years. So it isn't likely that the event was considered a 'flood' by anyone, in my estimation.
And re: the bible -- certainly one 'pre-conception' I operate on is that no single written work in history is 100% accurate. No work of man can possibly be 100% accurate. I have gained that 'pre-conception' thru hard experience. There have been, and continue to be, soooooo many people claiming to be the instrument of 'god'!
The suggestion that the bible was the direct words from some invisible, all-powerful being is completely, totally unfounded in any factual ground, to me. Show me some evidence, some reason to believe. Because absent any evidence, it's just a myth.
Consider, there are many, many writings by men thru history that claim to be the inerrant work of god -- the Koran, the Morman writings, heck there have been so many -- I consider the claim to be right up there with the claim 'I was abducted by aliens'.
Do you likewise take the writings of these other religions with the same 'open mind', I wonder?
I would expect that even within a constant increase in size that periodic floods would occur. I would also expect that even a gradual increase would be variable. Finally, I would expect the possibility that the ground isn't uniform and that spill over's could occur resulting in flash flooding. So even a gradual process could trigger a catastrophic event. However, unless the event was of a much larger are I just don't see the myth grabbing hold because numerous folks who were not affected would reject a world wide flood based on their own experience.
And re: the bible -- certainly one 'pre-conception' I operate on is that no single written work in history is 100% accurate. No work of man can possibly be 100% accurate. I have gained that 'pre-conception' thru hard experience. There have been, and continue to be, soooooo many people claiming to be the instrument of 'god'! ,
But here is the rub. Which passages aren't 100% accurate and which ones are ? I resolve it first by attempting to review my understanding of what I read, i.e do I really have the literal meaning of the text. If I cannot reconcile them then I let both versions stand because of my prism theory. I don't rule out the possibility that God could have seen to it that every word is truth.
The suggestion that the bible was the direct words from some invisible, all-powerful being is completely, totally unfounded in any factual ground, to me. Show me some evidence, some reason to believe. Because absent any evidence, it's just a myth.
The bible doesn't make this claim. In fact its clear from many writers in many passages what they consider to be their opinion and what God told them to write. I just happen to believe that its dangerous to start with the presumption that its all error or based on man's intepretation at the outset.
Consider, there are many, many writings by men thru history that claim to be the inerrant work of god -- the Koran, the Morman writings, heck there have been so many -- I consider the claim to be right up there with the claim 'I was abducted by aliens'.
I cannot speak for the other religions except that I reject any religion's that has as its basic premise that I can become good enough to save myself which I think is the premise of any religion besides Judaism or Christianity. I don't believe that man or me is capable of becoming good by my own acts or my own will. I also find any religion that preaches this concept as being very dangerous because it allows people to make the claim they have achieved God like qualities and use it to control others
Do you likewise take the writings of these other religions with the same 'open mind', I wonder?
I don't read them except so far as to understand they require me to achieve something I cannot attain to be saved.