Summations Only

I suspect you are after details of longtitude descriptions.

Lat and lon for Mt Ararat or more precise locating information would be a start but only a start.In addition:
When was this supposed flood?

​

Where was it?

​

What was the duration?

​

What was the extent?

​

Where are the sites where evidence of this alleged flood can be found?

​

What is the evidence of this asserted flood?

Neolithic writing was found on tortoise shells in China dating back to 8,600 years, which is almost 1,500 years before what you believe is the earliest known writing.But even if writing dated back only 6,000 years ago, what exactly is the significance in that? That's not true at all. In the Enuma Elish, the king's list go 20,000 years before the name of Adam. The implication of that is not only were those names listed long before Adam's name was, but it claims to be far older than Adam. Now, just because the claim says it goes back that far doesn't make it so... but the same goes for Adam. Over and over again in the opening sequence of the Genesis account, the author goes out of his way to spell out lunar days, i.e. "it was day, it was night... the first day... the second day... the third day... etc.This is merely your own invention based on scientific data after the fact. Nowhere in Genesis does it give a timeline for the universe or the earth. That's pure conjecture on your part.

quote:

---

Lat and lon for Mt Ararat or more precise locating information would be a start but only a start.

---

That would make the text authentic of its period too. Whyn not ask for a wiki description also?

Lat and lon for Mt Ararat or more precise locating information would be a start but only a start.In addition:
When was this supposed flood?

​

Where was it?

​

What was the duration?

​

What was the extent?

​

Where are the sites where evidence of this alleged flood can be found?

​

What is the evidence of this asserted flood?

What is known today as Mt. Ararat might be named after the mountainous region in Turkey and surrounding countries, not necessarily a specific mountain. For instance, "The Rockies" is the name of a cluster of mountains, not the name of any single mountain.But honestly, what's your point?

Wow.
Jar has posted the same questions several times and that is all you have managed to provide so far.
That took a fantastically long time for you to finally admit that you don't know.I expect it will take a further 50 posts of your bullshit before you finally respond to all the other questions with the same answer.

quote:

---

Neolithic writing was found on tortoise shells in China dating back to 8,600 years, which is almost 1,500 years before what you believe is the earliest known writing.

---

Every one of such claims have been found as bogus. Did you not wonder why no transit imprints between 8600 and 6000 are seen? If what you say is true, why do we not have alphabetical Chinese books listing 1000's of years of ancient history?

quote:

---

But even if writing dated back only 6,000 years ago, what exactly is the significance in that?

---

No buts here. The tangible signficance is that Adam is the first recorded name humanity possesses. Its big stuff.

quote:

---

That Adam is the oldest speech endowened human/life form: The Hebrew calendar, 5772 years, the oldest active one we have.

​

That's not true at all. In the Enuma Elish, the king's list go 20,000 years before the name of Adam. The implication of that is not only were those names listed long before Adam's name was, but it claims to be far older than Adam. Now, just because the claim says it goes back that far doesn't make it so... but the same goes for Adam.

---

You bring up a one only 'CONJURED" myth, yet dispute tangible evidenced writings with factually evidenced historical landmarks!? Note the terms conjured, perhaps, probably, etc. Note that this is listed as 18thC BCE:

quote:

---

Marduk (Sumerian spelling in Akkadian: AMAR.UTU ���� "solar calf"; perhaps from MERI.DUG; Biblical Hebrew מְרֹדַךְ Merodach; Greek Μαρδοχαῖος,[1] Mardochaios) was the Babylonian name of a late-generation god from ancient Mesopotamia and patron deity of the city of Babylon, who, when Babylon became the political center of the Euphrates valley in the time of Hammurabi (18th century BCE), started to slowly rise to the position of the head of the Babylonian pantheon, a position he fully acquired by the second half of the second millennium BCEAccording to The Ecyclopedia of Religion, the name Marduk was probably pronounced Marutuk. The etymology of the name Marduk is conjectured as derived from amar-Utu ("bull calf of the sun god Utu").

---

quote:

---

That the universe and the earth are billions of years old, and the first such claim made: the seperation actions listed in Genesis, prior to the advent of life forms. Namely, the seperation of light from darkness; day from night; water from land. These account for billions and millions of years.

​

Over and over again in the opening sequence of the Genesis account, the author goes out of his way to spell out lunar days, i.e. "it was day, it was night... the first day... the second day... the third day... etc.

---

Correction. Genesis does not list any 'first' day: it says DAY ONE [for the first], then goes on to say SECOND, THIRD, day, etc. This is astutely correct: a first means first of previous and other days!

quote:

---

This is merely your own invention based on scientific data after the fact. Nowhere in Genesis does it give a timeline for the universe or the earth. That's pure conjecture on your part.

---

The listing of the actions mentioned before life emerged do account for billions of years; it cannot be after the fact because the premise of billions was as yet not in the human vocab or mindset; this is in fact the first alluding to such a time scale of a finite universe's age, well before the term science was coined. It is said in a mode understandable by all generations of mankind, a feat in itself. It is not a superfluous verse: of note it is placed in the creation chapter - and it is an anticipatory action of forthcoming life. We now know that life could not/ would not have emegred but for such anticipatory actions.

There has never been confusion of the region's vicinity any place, including in all scholarly appraisals, and the text adequately confirms it.

The point is Mount Ararat shows the general vicinity of the flood - backed by listing of other nations and regions of its surrounds; it cannot be retrospective if it is the first such listing of that mount.

quote:

---

Lat and lon for Mt Ararat or more precise locating information would be a start but only a start.

---

And that would not become a proof this is not a contemporary writings - seeing that longitudes yet never existed in the human vocab? Would you also like a video recording?

Does everyone agree, at the very least, the Noah story stands up to historical scrutiny based on a regional flood?

No.As Tolkien wrote, "The tale grew in the telling."Any ark which was on the top of even a small mountain would require water levels worldwide thousands of feet higher than we know today.Gathering all the animals just would not happen. Maybe some rancher gathered his personal animals and barged them somewhere, but that's about it.Sorry, the tale is just so full of holes that that boat don't float.

Lat and lon for Mt Ararat or more precise locating information would be a start but only a start.In addition:
When was this supposed flood?

​

Where was it?

​

What was the duration?

​

What was the extent?

​

Where are the sites where evidence of this alleged flood can be found?

​

What is the evidence of this asserted flood?Sorry but if it existed then it exists now and can be identified by lat lon.So far you have presented NO evidence that there was a flood, a local flood, regional flood, world wide flood, recent flood, ancient flood, no evidence at all. All you have provided is word salad and irrelevant crap.

quote:

---

As Tolkien wrote, "The tale grew in the telling."

---

It didn't grow; there is no imprints of it - it just emerged.

quote:

---

Any ark which was on the top of even a small mountain would require water levels worldwide thousands of feet higher than we know today.

---

Not so in a region where the rains fall more than it can be disposed into an ocean. In recent tsunamies we saw whole cities submerged.

quote:

---

Gathering all the animals just would not happen. Maybe some rancher gathered his personal animals and barged them somewhere, but that's about it.

---

Sure, but gathering only domestic animals of Noah's household [the texts] would not show such problems.