Summations Only

As far as I've ever read, there is no evidence of any kind for a worldwide flood at any time.The typical interpretation of the biblical timeline, though, remains entirely problematic.

There was entirely too much going on in 2348 BC (Ussher date for the Flood)

Three years after this date, according to some Egyptologists, the sixth dynasty started. Three years is entirely too little time for Noah's family to give birth to all of those Egyptian citizens.Likewise, thirteen years is entirely too little time for Noah's family to give birth to Sargon and all the lands he conquered, from Sumer and the surrounding regions. And I kinda think Sargon was more than 13 years old.

Humanity has been around far longer than 6000 years

One of my older references (published in the 70's) states that Homo sapiens has been around for 50,000 years. More recent references on the web state 200,000 years as humanity's current age. The case is looking worse and worse for biblical literalists.

Alternate Approach

If the Flood was a real event and the Bible contains a timeline that we can use, then it must be hidden; i.e. it must need a code or factor to make it compatible with those of science.Let's face it. Science has a pretty good bead on reality. Scientists get a little too cocky at times (everyone has ego), but reality is what it is. It's not going away, and ignoring reality is so very close to delusion.I am a Christian who trusts science (yes, even evolution). I also trust people to be people; some of them are dishonest. Even some scientists do this. For instance, ridicule is not compatible with scientific method; it reeks of subjective bias. But biblical literalists also seem guilty of subjective bias. There are plenty of conflicting interpretations and only one (or none!) can be right. Both scientists and the faithful need to remain humble in order to find answers.Perhaps the Flood represents a real worldwide inundation, or perhaps it is symbolic for something that could not easily be explained in their vocabulary. So much of ancient myth may fall into this category.If the Bible has a compatible timeline, it needs to have clues which call attention to themselves as clues for the specific purpose of modifying the timeline. They cannot be numbers plucked at random or for convenience.I have found many such clues and have a new biblical timeline compatible with those of science.Just some of the clues:

• Genesis 5:2. Adam was both male and female (a "them," not a "him").
  
• The seemingly outrageous longevity of the early patriarchs is obviously too short to reach the current 200,000 years for the age of humanity. But like Adam, the ages might not be for the individual patriarchs, but for the eponymous tribes.
  
• Genesis 6:3. The years of man shall be 120. This is all well and good, but clearly this did not happen right away in Genesis, if we're talking about the longevity of the patriarchs.
  
• One patriarch lived to exactly 120 years; Moses himself.
  
• Using Jewish ancient tradition concerning thirds of one's life (first for parents; second for spouse and your own family; third for God), a "generation," in the case of Moses is 40 years.
  

Using forty as a factor back from Moses yields a Flood date of 27,970 BC. What's fascinating is that one other Christian had already given us the approximate date of 28,000 BC for the Flood; Edgar Cayce in the first half of the 20th century. Merely an interesting coincidence? Perhaps.

What Was the Big Deal?

Genesis 6 describes the situation prior to the Flood. It talks about violence, wickedness and a corruption of flesh as reasons for the Flood.Logic time: Genesis describes God as satisfied with the results of the Flood. He said that He would never again use the Flood (whatever that event really symbolizes). But when in the last 30,000 years has humanity not suffered from some form of wickedness and violence? Clearly, something very specific ticked off the Big Guy and moved Him to act. What was that "crime?"First of all, we need to understand God's purpose. It seems that His children had become lost (Genesis 3) and perhaps Homo sapiens were evolved/created for the purpose of rescuing His children. Genesis 1:26 suggests that His children are non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation (created in His image). Genesis 2:7 suggests that man is a physical being (Homo sapiens). So, God's children are immortal spirit wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh (a dual nature). Beyond the purpose of rescue, the bodies don't mean squat. Big revelation there.So, something jeopardized the rescue mission. Homo sapiens supposedly played a big part in this. Why? Intelligent speech and the ability to invent civilization?In Genesis 6, the crime seems to involve the "daughters of men" who the "sons of God" found to be hot so they tied the knot.If the "sons" were immortal spirit wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh, then the "daughters" must've been a different species.Bingo! By general consensus, the bulk of Homo neanderthalensis died out about 28,000 BC.If indeed, Neanderthal was wiped out 30,000 years ago, then they may well have been the target of the Flood. Why?Current scientific consensus remains that Neanderthal could speak, but not nearly as well as Homo sapiens. Could Neanderthal have preferred violence to negotiation? Could they and their hybrid (half-human) offspring have been incapable of producing civilization? Could this have been sufficient reason to have them wiped out--muddying the human gene pool?One thing is for certain: Homo sapiens can never again commit the "crime" (if it was one) of sexual procreation with Homo neanderthalensis. The "Flood" event did its job well.Edited by Admin, : Update sig.Edited by Lone77Star, : Cleaning up signature (newbie mistake, sorry).

Thanks, Admin. I appreciate the heads up and the welcome.I'm always looking for an intelligent discussion and it looks like this place has a good amount of that. I appreciate the opportunity to share what I've discovered in the last half century.Should I leave off a signature until I'm no longer a newbie? If so, how many posts qualifies? I love playing by the rules and the spirit behind them.

Hi, Granny. Thanks for the welcome."Modified literalist position?" Why not "modified metaphorical position?" I could call yours, "modified bigoted position." Do such labels make you feel better? Do they help?Purely mythic? Outstanding. And I suppose you have proof of this. That would save a lot of effort in being able to dismiss the entire book. Wow. Can you share this proof?You pose an approach to myth which is quite well-worn and which has some minor merit, but it isn't "gospel" on the treatment of myth.

Cases in point

• Troy
  
• Minoan Crete
  
• Mycenaean Greece
  
• Amazon warriors
  
• Ulysses's island of Ithaca
  
• Atlantis
  

Some scientists of the past, concluded in advance (not at all the mode of scientific method), that there was nothing to these myths. Five of these have been found to have substantial evidence in support of a past real event and/or location upon which the myth was based.It took an amateur (sloppy one, at that) to scoop on Troy. And an amateur may have scooped scientists on Ithaca, too.

Logical Fallacies and Bias

Deciding that something is unworthy of study before a thorough investigation, is unworthy of science. Yet, regrettably some scientists do this. Far too many skeptics do this, but that is the nature of "skepticism"to remain biased (toward doubt).Not many years ago, the myth of Atlantis was dismissed because there wasn't any evidence of a civilization that far back. But this was an argument to ignorance (logical fallacy). The recent discovery of Gobekli Tepe, Turkey (9500 BC) blows that argument out of the water. My own research of the literature turned up three items that prove an Atlantis-like event occurred right when Plato said the legendary island collapsed into the Atlantic. One of those pieces of scientific evidence is a veritable "smoking gun" in the death of Atlantis. Was Atlantis a reality? I don't think I will be going out on a limb to say, "We don't know, yet." Such restraint and humility trumps skepticism, because they lack the bias that scientific method warns against.Anyone can refuse to look. That's their business. There were a number of so-called scientists who refused to look below the Clovis horizon in North American anthropology; in fact, ridiculing those who did. That's not science. That's dark age egotisma know-it-all attitude that stands in the way of discovery rather than helping to illuminate.No evidence? So very typical of the truly biased: Yes, there is evidence, blatantly overlookedover two hundred myths worldwide that suggest that a worldwide flood might have happened. One of those happens to reside in Genesis. And, oh yes, Homo neanderthalensis disappeared at the same time. I'd call that ~200 pieces of evidence. Do we need something more substantial? You bet we do. But we also need to dispense with unsupported dismissiveness (as you've displayed) and self-indulgent ridicule (that other skeptics have displayed).I appreciate you calling it like you see it. I can't help but return the favor.

@Theodoric, thanks. Sounds good to me.

Thanks, Percy.I understand the policy and concur with the spirit of it. The original signature contained links to no website which explicitly sold anything, though one contained peripheral ads, and one other contained a donate button (giving away all articles for free). I have removed both of these and substituted two others. Now, all 3 links are to "ad-less" websites.And thanks for the welcome!Edited by Lone77Star, : corrected spelling "explicit" to "explicitly"

Well, @Theodoric. Don't hurt yourself with that sharp stick. At least @Granny Magda attempted to tackle specifics.Pseudoscience? Anthropology saying that Homo sapiens is at least 200,000 years old? What books have you been sniffing?And "special" formatting? Do I detect a note of envy-provoked spite? Or is it merely a miserly curmudgeon's bitterness that someone else has a talent? Okay, so I had 20+ years experience as a Hollywood artist. (Maybe you were merely trying to add more gravitus [weightiness] to the delightfully cute avatar you use.)Anyone can work from a hypothesis that there is nothing to a specific myth or legend--that it remains merely a story with no basis in fact. That's one hypothesis. But is it the right one?I happen to have a different hypothesis.Of course, I usually don't like discussing specifics with curmudgeons. Egos are such messy things; I despise my own.