4 ms·
> I find "the part with the Ark" fascinating. The number of different traditions that have a deluge myth has to make you wonder if there isn't something behind
by mcphage 5y ago
> I find "the part with the Ark" fascinating. The number of different traditions that have a deluge myth has to make you wonder if there isn't something behind it.
The biblical account isn't the oldest version, however. So it seems unlikely that that version is correct, whereas older versions were wrong. Although the older known versions weren't very believable either, so it's possible something might have happened, but it doesn't seem like there's really much to go on beyond "there was a huge flood, and a few people survived." Which definitely did happen, repeatedly.
- soneil 5y agoI think "correct" is a weird way to think about it. I mean, if we take the theory that these are an oral tradition of post ice-age sea level changes - then there was more time between the ice age and the start of the written record, than there is between the bible and the present. These would have been myths told for thousands of years before they appeared in the written record. That's the part that fascinates me - it seems obvious that the OT gets more realistic the closer events get to the written record. But some of the parts we write off as unrealistic could be the remains of stories as old as the human race. If the flood myth describes the end of the ice age, that would mean you and I are sharing an oral tradition 10,000 years old. I find that a lot more exciting than how factually accurate it is.
- mcphage 5y ago> I find that a lot more exciting than how factually accurate it is. I agree with you, although there's a large contingent for whom whether or not it's factually accurate is the most significant concern.