Noah's Flood: revisited

[Caid Ivik]

You should follow a little of asha'rist doctrines and cease to talk about divine attributes, for their meaning is always different from anything we say about them ;)

[Gunwounds v2.0]

Exactly Andrew.... God doesnt want to leave flood evidence behind  or geological earth layers that are only 6,000 years old..... because such proof would back up the Bible so hardcore that the Bible would no longer need faith.  And thats not what God in the Bible is about.  He is about testing, and about seeing what a person's true heart is.  By placing us in a world that doesnt make the Bible "obvious", he has created the perfect scenario for conscious creatures to make decisions regarding their own belief systems.

To answer your question bluntly acriku.... God doing His divine "cover up" is what allows you to be an atheist.  If current science records backed the Bible 100% then you'd have no choice in your belief system, as believing in the God of the Bible would be your only choice, which would eradicate any shred of free will or illusion of free will we would have.

The "value" or the "reason" in having a world that has been divinely manipulated and doesnt make the Bible "obvious", is so that you'll never know you're in the Matrix, Neo.  Which makes you free.  When Jesus returns according to the Bible (or when people simply die), people will lose that freedom.  At Jesus's Return, people will wish to do evil but they will not be able to act upon it.  In addition, they wont be able to believe that He is non-existent, another piece of freedom lost.  So yes this experiment we live in now is full of freedom, when the experiment disappears so does the freedom.  Though this shouldnt matter in the end of time, as everyone will have taken their sides.

@ Nema --- what i spoke about above in 1st paragraph, regarding Andrew's comments,  should really be enough to address your problems, however just to change gears and explore another side, lets discuss another possibility:

Perhaps its really not so much a contradiction as it is an omission.  The Bible tells us of the flood, yet it doesnt refer to every divine occurence during/after the flood.  I would think the God of the Bible would be less concerned with the zoological and geological record's "human interpretation" , than He would be with his moral experiment.  The zoological and geological records are as they should be , however since we do not have all the information, our interpretation of those records are flawed.  I'm sure God also altered the Astronomical record when he paused the Earth's orbit around the Sun for 24 hours as well.  However if this is what He wanted to occur then "that" by default would be the "true" astronomical record, not what we humans would expect in a textbook which disregards any of His actions.  The true record interpreted  correctly would be  [universe age - 1 day (due to divine pause) = Astronomical Record].  If we disregard His existence and His influence then we can never truly interpret records accurately, so saying its a contradiction is a misnomer.  If i travelled back in time to talk to Caesar and tell him of how my country destroyed entire cities with millions of people in a matter of seconds, Caesar would think that my record of events was contradictory to what is humanly possible in previous records of war.  However, if i neglected to tell him that my country used a nuclear bomb to accomplish this, then his claim of contradiction would be inaccurate.  What he perceived to be a contradiction is really just a bad interpretation with insufficient information.  If indeed the Holy Spirit exists (God's power) and is able to manipulate our time space continuum , then it actually is not supernatural but rather a natural part of our universe that is impossible to quantify or calculate.  Similar to the impossibility to determine the location and direction of an electron simultaneously, or the impossibility of measuring a black hole's density. If spiritual components do exist then the universe could never be fully understood without understanding them.  Are we meant to understand everything?  Perhaps not, if we understood everything, then it would be the same as exiting God's experiment, (as is thought to happen upon death ..... or return of Christ), which would destroy our freedom.  So perhaps the the inability to scientifically understand spiritual components of the universe, which leads to being unable to truly understand the material world, ensures our belief system freedom.

Halo

[nemafakei]

"Perhaps its really not so much a contradiction as it is an omission"

Whether you want to call it an omission of our interpretation of the facts or something else entirely, your god is still leaving us with data whose most obvious interpretation to us appears to clearly preclude any great flood or astronomical bank holiday.

Your point then returns to this idea of a god who wants to "test our faith", a god whose entire existence can only be found by instinct. While you may get such a feeling, speaking personally, I just don't get the feeling that such a god exists.

[MrFlibble]

The one thing I fail to understand completely, is how different concepts that belong to different discourses are mixed. One of the ideas recurring in the PRP discussions can be formulated as "God can manipulate and override physical laws by His will", but such statement is flawed because it mixes completely different concepts that belong to religious (God) and scientific (laws of physics) discourses respectively. There are no laws of physics within the Bible's authors worldview, and the natural course of actions (as opposed to its miraculous changes through divine intervention) is mostly viewed as static, and thus is often neglected. Conversely, the idea of divine intervention isn't favored within scientific research (physics or otherwise) because of the Occam's razor principle.

IMHO, different worldviews shouldn't be mixed up like that. A compromise between science and religion doesn't really make sense because it is aimed only at creating emotional comfort for certain individuals and groups of people. Paradoxically, mutually exclusive ideas are able to coexist within a human mind (to some extent, at least), and there is little need for such ideas to be forcibly fit into a unified worldview.

There is a completely different problem that is related to this discussion, and that is the problem of the Bible as a text. There's no denying that certain historical events that we know about from some other sources are indeed mentioned in the Bible, albeit in a form that I would characterize as "poetically modified". On the other hand, the flood myth is present in many cultures, and the question of it is an account of a real natural disaster or an allegory remains open to debate.

[Caid Ivik]

That's not so exactly. I've told you that term of  'logos' was used by both stoics, who described with it the everlasting order of nature ('physis', dh law of physics) and by st.John, where it did mean God, or to be more exact, His emanate aspect. Such view of 'religious discourse' is of course very often used, in muslim theology, I somewhat cannot stop mentioning asha'rite school (tough I'm more a mu'tazili ;D ), because these preferred exactly such 'event-atomism', disagreeing with any form of natural causality, rational continuity. Mu'tazilla, their predecessor as the main theological school in Baghdad, did actually talked about matter composed of atoms, which were given divine blessing to form itself (similar stance like deism). In philosophies within christianity we may find much more notions, syncretizing scientific and theological discourses of their time. Bergson or de Chardin would be perfect examples of such a syncretism in the last century.

But let's push it further. Christianity was spawned by (let's not talk about prophecies and gospels) a melting pot of greek and persian philosophy, and same as greek peripatetism became stoic moral 'technology', christianity became a ritualized religion. However, it still needed philosophy to keep its foundations logical (at least in the east, only later in Europe too). Ockham himself was a theologian too, not talking about Aquinus, who was one of the first, who talked about the razor principle (btw in the beginning of the chapter concerning arguments for God's existence in his Summa theologiae...). Western philosophy was based on Platon, Aristoteles and christian theology, its empiric science is a mix of philosophic doctrines of Bacon, Galilei, Hume, Kant, Comte, perhaps Heidegger, so it is natural, when there are attempts to analyze the roots. In islam there was Ibn Rushd, who tried to think in both ways independently, but most either abolished christianity, or harmonized their thoughts.

According to hardcore positivists like Carnap, 'physical laws' is a same metaphysical, senseless word as 'God'. You may say 'law of Duns Scotus' or 'second thermodynamical law', but not a summa of it, like it were something defined. At least defined better than God.

[MrFlibble]

I agree with your arguments Caid, but I was referring to the contemporary state of affairs in the first place, when the two radically opposed points of view are (a) "Every single word in the Bible is true" and (b) "There's no scientific proof that God exists and therefore atheism is the only right way to go".

Let's take this example:

I'm sure God also altered the Astronomical record when he paused the Earth's orbit around the Sun for 24 hours as well.

(text marked in bold by me - MrF.)

If we go strict by the Bible, it is nowhere said there about Earth being paused in its orbit. It's said that the Sun stood still in the sky, and one cannot treat both statements as equal if not adhering to purely scientific knowledge, which is not implied in the Bible, and is not necessary the only way to explain the mentioned event. Moreover, the "Sun stood still" statement basically doesn't require any interpretation and explanation (I think you'll agree that the statements (1) "the Sun stood still in the sky because of God's will" and (2) "the Sun stood still in the sky because the Earth was paused in its orbit by God's will" are not equal) other than divine intervention, and, conversely, the scientific model of our galaxy doesn't require the notion of divine intervention to explain how planets move in their orbits around the Sun. This is what I meant by mixing up different concepts.

[Acriku]

Funny about that example is, no other culture describes such a phenomenon happening. Apparently the sun stood still within the astronomical plane of the Middle East... But that's beside your point. Your radically opposed view (b) is to an extreme that only a minority of atheists I have met would agree with. Being the "right" way to go is assuming a lot of things that having no scientific proof for a god does not conclude. I think a better word to describe that point of view is to say "... therefore atheism is one rational way to go." Many, including myself, hold silent reprieve on views such as deism or pantheism. It'd be very difficult to argue against them, as there is no counter-evidence since they are capable of embracing science without contradiction. In other words, science cannot be used to counter-argue.

[Gunwounds v2.0]

"Perhaps its really not so much a contradiction as it is an omission"

Whether you want to call it an omission of our interpretation of the facts or something else entirely, your god is still leaving us with data whose most obvious interpretation to us appears to clearly preclude any great flood or astronomical bank holiday.

Your point then returns to this idea of a god who wants to "test our faith", a god whose entire existence can only be found by instinct. While you may get such a feeling, speaking personally, I just don't get the feeling that such a god exists.

The Bible also refers to God burying Moses.

So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.

34:6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.

God did this for a reason, which I'm sure you're familiar with.  He hid physical evidence of Moses.  Yet text which details Moses' life is in millions of people's homes.  So basically God removes obvious physical evidence of Bible History yet leaves the text, (much better than the mere instinct you chalk it up to),  just enough information to leave it to faith and a person's heart.  I fail to see how a flood would be any different.

Halo

[Gunwounds v2.0]

I agree with your arguments Caid, but I was referring to the contemporary state of affairs in the first place, when the two radically opposed points of view are (a) "Every single word in the Bible is true" and (b) "There's no scientific proof that God exists and therefore atheism is the only right way to go".

Let's take this example:(text marked in bold by me - MrF.)

If we go strict by the Bible, it is nowhere said there about Earth being paused in its orbit. It's said that the Sun stood still in the sky, and one cannot treat both statements as equal if not adhering to purely scientific knowledge, which is not implied in the Bible, and is not necessary the only way to explain the mentioned event. Moreover, the "Sun stood still" statement basically doesn't require any interpretation and explanation (I think you'll agree that the statements (1) "the Sun stood still in the sky because of God's will" and (2) "the Sun stood still in the sky because the Earth was paused in its orbit by God's will" are not equal) other than divine intervention, and, conversely, the scientific model of our galaxy doesn't require the notion of divine intervention to explain how planets move in their orbits around the Sun. This is what I meant by mixing up different concepts.

True, perhaps there are many different ways God could have held the Sun in the sky supernaturally without it effecting other civilizations, or perhaps he did hold the orbit and there was 24 hours of darkness in other lands.  Either way it makes no difference as both would have been supernatural by today's lingo.  I dont see describing it as "holding earth's orbit" as mixing concepts... i see it as using what i know about the universe to imagine what God might have done.  For instance where the Bible claims that God turned a sundial backwards momentarily, i could imagine the Earth's orbit going in reverse, or perhaps simply He manipulated the shadow right there on the sundial, but whatever i decide on in my own mind how can you criticize me for that?.  I agree that God's Will is independent of Science and that Science doesnt need God's Will to explain things, however if something was done in God's Will yet is explainable by science, i dont see that as a mixing of concepts. For if God wills you to die, your death could have an obvious scientific explaination.  If the sky opened up and God's voiced boomed and said " I will you to die"  and then the coroner walks over and examines you and says "yep he died of cardiac arrest" ....well then your death has divine and scientific explainations now doesnt it? 

Halo

[Gunwounds v2.0]

Funny about that example is, no other culture describes such a phenomenon happening. Apparently the sun stood still within the astronomical plane of the Middle East... But that's beside your point. Your radically opposed view (b) is to an extreme that only a minority of atheists I have met would agree with. Being the "right" way to go is assuming a lot of things that having no scientific proof for a god does not conclude. I think a better word to describe that point of view is to say "... therefore atheism is one rational way to go." Many, including myself, hold silent reprieve on views such as deism or pantheism. It'd be very difficult to argue against them, as there is no counter-evidence since they are capable of embracing science without contradiction. In other words, science cannot be used to counter-argue.

Yes, I'm glad we've come to the agreement that you cannot use science to counter-argue a religion.  My point all along is that the Bible is only erroneous if God is assumed to not exist.  But since that debate is inconclusive, it appears we're stuck.  You cannot scrutinize the Bible without first disproving God (which is what allows for all of the extraordinary events).  If God is assumed to exist then nothing in the Bible can be seriously scrutinized by science as science cannot calculate or quantify a Deity ... or even more importantly, the deeds of a Deity.  There is no physical science that can forsee what is possible with a Deity's power and there is no psychological or sociological science that can predict how a Deity's thought process will go.

Are we at the mercy of having to believe the statements of ancient prophets and leaders in an ancient text?  Unfortunately "yes", as this causes uncertainty, but Fortunately "yes" as this uncertainty gives freedom to our belief system.  The fact that you can sit there and honestly believe in your mind that God does not exist means that we are truly free from the mind control that a Deity most certainly could have implemented if He had chosen to.

Furthermore it all goes back to philosophy, I think treating others with love and respect is the most important thing, and while you certainly dont have to be a believer in God to do that or to achieve "Good", I agree with Caid that Religion and Morality can serve as advanced "tools" to help one acheive the "Good", which is why many choose to stay religious despite having an educated intellect that understands atheism.  Also, many see no problem holding two contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time, and i believe F. Scott Fitzgerald stated that that was the true test of a first rate mind. There is nothing wrong with someone being educated and understanding the geological/astronomical records of the Earth, and yet understand that if a Deity were to exist that the record could be changed at Its will and have no problem with that.  Also as stated before, if God would go through the trouble of hiding Moses' body to prevent mindless worship of a prophet's corpse, i see no reason why God wouldnt remove evidence of an event that would also infringe on one's belief system freedom.

Halo

[MrFlibble]

Your radically opposed view (b) is to an extreme that only a minority of atheists I have met would agree with. Being the "right" way to go is assuming a lot of things that having no scientific proof for a god does not conclude.

Well, I formulated the viewpoints (a) and (b) as extremes on the comparison scale, while real views shared by people may be closer to one of the extremes or the other.

For if God wills you to die, your death could have an obvious scientific explaination.  If the sky opened up and God's voiced boomed and said " I will you to die"  and then the coroner walks over and examines you and says "yep he died of cardiac arrest" ....well then your death has divine and scientific explainations now doesnt it?

Hm, I think that "he died of cardiac arrest" is pointing out the cause, rather than explains the case. In fact, one can produce a chain of cause-and-effect statements for a scientific (I'd rather say rational) explanation (like "congenital heart disease + longtime stress + extreme shock -> cardiac arrest"), but at the same time the statement "it was God's will" can be applied to any of these statements and to the whole chain of events at the same time. It is probably the ultimate difference between science and faith that made me talk about mixing concepts up. In faith, there's no need for a rational explanation, and what you label a "divine" explanation is basically not an "explanation", but rather a statement of faith.

The contemporary state of affairs is such that scientific knowledge about the world and the information presented in the Bible will inevitably contradict one another on some points - like the Noah's flood. I believe it is a matter of personal choice which source to regard as having the ultimate authority, but my question would be different: is it absolutely necessary for a person who has faith to believe that every single word in the Bible is true? By the way, I sincerely don't know what is the official position of Christianity about the Bible's origins. AFAIK, it is said that Qu'ran was written after the visions that Mohammad had had, but what about the Old Testament?

[Caid Ivik]

This problem of stance like "every word in Bible is true" must seem very weird for anybody, who had read it...ie in moment when Pilatus asked Jesus "What is truth?", what is one believing in? In relativity of truth? In historicity of the event?

[nemafakei]

"I fail to see how a flood would be any different."

That's as may be, but I fail to see how it addresses my main point.

"Also as stated before, if God would go through the trouble of hiding Moses' body to prevent mindless worship of a prophet's corpse, i see no reason why God wouldnt remove evidence of an event that would also infringe on one's belief system freedom."

You don't think hiding the body making it impossible for people to corpse-worship isn't infringing on their belief system?

[Egeides]

same as greek peripatetism became stoic moral 'technology', christianity became a ritualized religion

This sentence of Caid could bring to think that it fits well for the flood as well, in the sense that the text conserves something which is read and leads to the goal of "enlightening" the reader about this, and even though he does not get everything he still will tend to get the gist (like rituals which are to lead overall to this/that).

It is not meant to be literally true but to true overall. Like stories from some old people carrying the main point. It is interesting to look at science's peripatetism as a ritual - something which is not the point in itself but conserving the point. Text, and more so text within "told story" like Genesis, is then a less precise version of what in science would remain mathematical symbols to be repeated as ritual. In every case, if carried correctly, it carries truth even one who does not see it fully at some point.

And towards this point: going by Genesis/else for spiritual is as one going by the formula/etc for rational. Yet the formula by itself is not the science and someone just repeating/translating elsewhere some formulas should therefore not advance (given this).

Caid, could you precise what you meant by stoic moral "technology"?

[Caid Ivik]

Yes, one reads texts like Bible not for truth values, the Bible itself contains its "goal", meaning, encoded into a speach, which could be read in any language. Actually I've been referring more to a silimar scheme like cybernetic circle:

problem -> theory -> practice -> new problem etc

Problems come out in every life, why should I bother generalizing. Cosmology (or cosmogony) is then a part of theory. Theory is the logic and language, all, what could be said about the problem. Practice is then a technological application of it; the "goal" of it. One cannot compare a rather wider field of problems, being solved by christians and jews in three or four millenia than problems of post-galileian astronomers in last four centuries, however we may compare parts of the theories. And say, that in reference to present discoveries, there is no evidence of Earth slowering on her orbit as in case of Jozue. But that's a part of theory, not the problem.

[Sneakgab]

Well, I'm not to sure about this particular idea yet, so I wouldn't be surprised if I discarded it soon, but this thought seems worth pondering; 

I wonder about the whole ''freedom to believe or not believe'' thing. The only way to believe seems to be to have the ''instinct/feeling'' which is presumably God given (in the case of God being real) or being insane/ irrational (in the case that God does not exist).

There is no evidence or method with which to obtain this belief, so it seems that believing or not is a matter of fluke which has nothing to do with will. Don't misconstrue this however, of course anybody could believe anything without evidence or reason if they wanted to, but believing in the ''true God'' (if he exists) is only a matter of the fortune of receiving the correct instinct/feeling or not.

As an atheist (for now) I have never received this feeling and can do nothing about it, so this ''test of faith'' may be a ludicrous preset thing with no freedom of choice involved for a person like me. Of course, it may be true that all receive this feeling at one point in their lives/time and therefore all get the choice to believe or not, but that is a matter for another post and for now it appears that there is much reason to have faith in any arbitrary God/thing without proof and that for some there is no ''feeling/personal philosophical belief''to guide them.

 

[Acriku]

While you may discard that idea, it holds merit. A lot of people who are asked why they believe answer because of a personal feeling that God exists. It's a gut feeling that reinforces itself when things occur in their favor (e.g. "God was the reason I got promoted.").

[Falconius]

Sorry for jumping in like this -> its been a while.

The question about Noah is similarly controvercial to the question about Adam.

I'll keep this short by simply stating what I've found.

Those truly interested can seek and find for themselves.

Adam lived about 6000 years ago. Yet the ancestors of the Indians crossed from Asia to North America about 12000 years ago over an ice bridge that linked the continents during the ice age.

This makes the Indians a non-Adamic people. Christians hate these facts because they dearly would wish to impose their religion on the entire world.

Noah lived about 4000 years ago in the Tarim basin, the greatest basin on Earth. He built the ark over a very long period of time, during which he continually preached to the people. The symbolic value of this will probably be missed by the majority here. Below the Tarim basin lay a great sub-surface water reservoir which played the leading part in causing the flood. Do yourself a favour and have a look at this great desert basin area using google-earth. It is amazing.

There is maybe a pattern to notice:

Adam's fall            -> 6000 years

Noah's cataclysm by water -> 4000 years

The Messiah                -> 2000 years

Revelations cataclysm by fire -> now?

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/noah.html

[Acriku]

Question is, how accurate are these dates? Also, what gives the idea that there was a Noah with an ark at all? It was not a new story at the time, so it could very well have been adapted from other sources (Greek, Egyptian, etc). My final question is what are Adamic people? Are they superior, different, or merely offspring from a very old, probably fictional, ancestor?

[Caid Ivik]

Adam lived about 6000 years ago. Yet the ancestors of the Indians crossed from Asia to North America about 12000 years ago over an ice bridge that linked the continents during the ice age.

This makes the Indians a non-Adamic people. Christians hate these facts because they dearly would wish to impose their religion on the entire world.

Is it a fact? Do I hate the fact? Does this prevent the Church from baptizing Indians?

[Falconius]

The dates are not too difficult to estimate.

The entire lineage of the Messiah is preserved in the Bible.

So the question is about the accuracy of the Bible.

The Church has a long standing record of tyranny and murder.

When the Bible finally came into the hands of ordinary people, this set them free from the tyranny.

It is your choice to see the Bible as fictional.

But however secular one may be, the influence and power of the Bible on our civilization is undeniable.

From a purely Biblical prophetic perspective Adam and his descendants are here to be the stewards of this world.

Nowhere in the Bible are they called "superior".

They are noble of character, but they can, and have ofter fallen.

Whether Indians should be baptized or not I do not know.

It should be noted that they had their own religion before the tyranny of the Church spread to their continent.

Perhaps they are entitled to their own religion.

[Acriku]

The Bible has indeed had an effect on the world. Good or bad depends on whether you view the atrocities done in Thy name are the cause of the religion or the religion members. That's an argument for another thread, however. As for Noah, what gives evidence to his very existence? To the flood's existence? I ask these two simple questions because you told his tale as if it were not doubted.

[Caid Ivik]

Ancestors of Slovaks had also their own religion, also the baptizing was done for purely political reasons - the princes tried to ensure their alliances with Franks and Greeks. But anyway, on every level, the nation prospered since then from a half-nomadic horde to a quite urban civilization. If one compares first thousand years of the slavic history - if one can ever use the word, as there was virtually no change on a cultural level - and then the second millenium, it's a significant difference. You may call it an era of 'tyranny of the Church', sure, but if I was to choose thousand years of such a 'tyranny' or an eternity of pagan stillness, then I would always pick up the former.

[Falconius]

The major problem with a discussion of Noah is that it touches upon the absolutely forbidden subject of race. But for the sake of honour one must sometimes run the gauntlet, as a knight might say. Let me start by saying the not so obvious: there are some human races that became extinct for various reasons. In order to understand this subject you must be open minded enough to ask some terrifying questions.

I know that the Aussies and the Americans would be quick to contemplate with heavy overbearing guilt that in their own history they brought 2 races to the brink of extinction. Here is South Africa Europeans saved the Khoi-Khoi race from extinction by halting the Zulus, who was bent on exterminating all other tribes and races in SA. This is all fairly recent history, but what about the very distant past?

Take a look at this:

You ask for facts Acriku-?

Remember how the story of Troy was once seen as a complete fable, untill archeology caught up?

I'll give you what I was able to gather from the net:

The Bible gives the date of the flood as commencing in 2345 B.C. and ending in 2344 B.C.

When we come to Genesis 7, where it is talking about the "flood", wherever it says that the flood covered "the earth", the Hebrew word used in the original writing by Moses was "eh-rats", meaning "the land". The flood did cover the particular land where it occurred. That is, it was a local flood which covered one particular region or land, not the whole earth.

In the southern part of Sinkiang, there is a great basin, rimmed by high mountains on all sides, but with an outlet on the eastern end of it, through the mountains where the headwaters of the Hwang-Ho River, the Yellow River rises. This basin is today nearly all desert, but it bears evidence of a fertile and heavily inhabited past. Explorers have found ruins of ancient cities, uncovered by the drifting sands of the desert. Also the known geological structure shows that, in ancient times at least, beneath this desert lay an enormous underground natural reservoirs, caverns filled with water. It is the same geological structure which furnishes artesian water in many parts of the world today.

The Shu-King historic record of China, shows that King Yao came to the throne in 2356 B.C., 11 years before the start of Noah's flood, and ruled China for many years after the flood. During the reign of Yao, the Shu King reports that the Hwang Ho River (which drains mountains and a great basin in Sinkiang province) had excessive floods for three generations.

Have we any other evidence to support our view that this was the region where Adam and Eve and their descendants settled? Yes. Remember that Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden to the eastward. Later, when Cain murdered Abel, and as a punishment was banished from the land where Adam and Eve lived, Genesis 4"16 tells us that Cain "went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the Land of Nod, on the east of Eden." The Hebrew word "nod" means "wandering". That is, in the upper Tigris and Euphrates valleys, at the north of Eden, these rivers were running swiftly downhill from their mountain sources. Therefore, they cut themselves deep channels in the ground. Even today we can find the traces of the ancient diversion dams, built by the ancients to raise the water level up close to the surface of the ground, so they would not have to pump it so high to get it into their irrigation canals.

Farther to the south, in the lower Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, where the slope was no longer steep, the accumulation of silt picked up by the rivers where they ran swiftly was now settling to the bottom of the river beds, constantly raising the level, so that every high water season the rivers overflowed their banks and flooded the valleys. This is exactly the same as we have in our own Mississippi Valley. These annual floods washed away the people's houses and sent them fleeing far away to high ground. Therefore it was correctly called "the land of Nod", "the land of wandering". Here Cain settled, and taught the people to build high dikes along the river banks, just as we have done along the banks of the Mississippi river. This enabled them to stop the annual floods, so they could now build permanent cities of good houses in the lower Tigris and Euphrates Valleys, the land then called by its own inhabitants "Sumer", and later called "Chaldea".

In a very few places the Bible calls it "the Plain of Shinar". That is, Cain went back westward from where Adam and Eve lived. It was thus that Cain started his great empire. Yes, Cain is a well known historical character, found not only in the Bible (but he is known in history under another name). Cain established an empire which extended from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea and even took in some of the larger islands in the Mediterrean Sea.

Some day I will tell you about Cain and his empire but, that is another story.

Credit goes to Grand_Inquisitor from SF

There is more but I tried to keep this short.

[Acriku]

Yes, different races have come and gone, I can see that. I really don't think Troy's story has anything to do with the Bible, but as far as the flood being local I would agree. If the story is based on anything, it's got to be a local flood (which discredits the Bible as a hyperbole story). The details of the story I consider to be absorbed from Egyptian (et cetera) stories and myths. Now, placing the flood story in China is really grabbing at straws. The author is merely picking a location in the general Eastward direction (which encompasses a great portion of the world) that had floods around the time of the flood story. Now floods happen all the time, and in cycles. It would be extremely likely for there to be a local flood during the supposed time of the flood story. The author just picked a good candidate, that is all. Very little evidence coupled with conjecture.

I'm curious though, where is Cain found in other history? Under what presumed name?