Fortigurn

No they haven't. Confucius wasn't even born until about 551 BC. The evidence we have for ancient Chinese civilization is largely archaeological rather than textual.

Unfortunately it doesn't look quite complete yet. The 'Arguments for a Local flood' side is missing any text. For a more balanced approach, see this first article of four. The Bible certainly agrees with every other piece of evidence available, which is why a global flood is not even remotely plausible. I've been to the National Palace Museum in Taiwan and seen the artefacts myself. There's no doubt that Chinese history predates the flood. But why bother when Chinese history, when it's equally conclusive that Sumerian and Egyptian history predate the flood?

What it is doing is quoting a phrase which is demonstrably used in one verse in a non-literal sense. The context of the verse informs us that the sense is non-literal in this place. That is not circular reasoning.

Chinese culture dates back further than 11,000 years BC? Why doesn't that make sense? Because of the context in which it appears.

If you don't see how that is a figure of speech, then you need to read the article, which provides a list of Bible passages in which the same language is used figuratively. Standard Bible dictionaries observe that the language can be used in this way. I believe the Xia Dynasty was between the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BC. I am not aware of any recorded dynasties prior to the 3rd millennium BC, certainly not 11,000 BC.

I believe there's plenty of evidence for pre-flood Chinese history. And Egyptian history. And Sumerian history. No drama. It's not compulsory. You won't be graded on it.

As the article goes on to explain, the physical evidence for the flood indicates that it was only local. There's also the fact (not specifically mentioned in the article), that the pre and post flood geography of the Edenic region is clearly described in the Bible as being the same - the geography would not have changed as a result of a local flood, but would have been dramatically changed by a global flood. THis is a somewhat confused statement. Using a figure of speech does not mean that you're saying something which isn't true. It does mean that the words are not to be taken literally. To use a venerable example, if I say it is raining cats and dogs that doesn't mean that I am not telling the truth. But it does mean that you're not to take the words literally. The phrase 'raining cats and dogs' means 'raining heavily', and I am certainly telling the truth as long as it is indeed raining heavily.

It seems you haven't read the article. That direct statement is true, and it is not an exaggeration. It is the first point explained in the article. It is a figure of speech. Firstly there is nothing in the text which says that Noah was building the Ark for 120 years. Secondly, there is nothing to say that he was the only person building it. Thirdly, it doesn't take 120 years to build a ship the size of the Ark. Try not to read into the text things which aren't there.

Then you misunderstood the opening statement. The opening statement was not intended to convey any such thing. Local. I don't believe that all the animals of the world were represented in the Ark, no. I believe all of the story is factual. No, I believe it took less time than that. The Bible doesn't say anything about Noah building the Ark for 100 years. Surely you mean 'An age beyond the longest in verifiable recorded human history'? Yes.

That wasn't meant to be persuasive. You're not actually addressing the argument, you're simply repeating the opening statement without reading the supporting evidence provided for it. Even worse, you're representing the opening statement as the argument itself, which is inaccurate. I agree. Of course, the article argues that a global flood did not take place. It argues for a local flood. It seems you didn't read the article very well at all. It proposes a local flood, not a global flood. You're arguing as if the article proposed a global flood.

There is no hard evidence that Noah existed. But there is physical evidence for the flood described in the Bible, and evidence that the story of Noah's Ark is credible. That evidence is reviewed here.