C
Cassiterides
Guest
The bit in bold is bad science for several reasons. First, it assumes that the written record is the only authority worthy for consideration. What about other kinds of records that pre-date the written word? Like the fossil record, rock strata and the genomics/proteomics data? Are you saying that we can't infer anything about the world unless it was written in the narrow time span during which human beings could write? Second, we have to remember that 'written history' is always written according to the interpretations of the author. Are you suggesting that we rely on the honesty of biased human beings whose interpretations about the world are bound up in their own views of it?
Your starting at the assumption that fossils etc predate writing.
Using your logic then, we cannot know that Noah's flood was 'world-wide' as Noah claimed. For Noah to know that he would have to have observed the whole world as having been flooded. Just because some biased human being 'documented' a huge flood that, to him, seemed global, does not necessarily mean that this actually happened exactly as he said it.
Noah was told by God that the flood was going to cover the entire earth.
Upvote
0

