Quote:
Originally Posted by YourNightmare
The bible is one of the most unreliable and unvalid pieces of literature out there. Stories passed through generations aren't proof, as each time it's retold, there's bound to be some distortion. Also, how are the stories meant to be proof? I could just as easily pass stories through my family's and friends' generations regarding a bottle of water that spilled and ruined a book. It's not proof, as who is to say that the original story was not only accurate but un-opinionated and was actually true? What if in my example, no such bottle existed? What if what really happened was the dog ate the paper or I pissed on the paper? You can pass stories on as much as you want but they too have large issues with reliability, validity and whether or not they're true, especially if it's retold for numerous generations.
|
I'm not saying the Bible is a reliable source. There just isn't much proof of any individual from that time, so the fact that there is a lack of documented evidence shouldn't serve as a reason to discount the possibility he existed. Did they have taxes or birth certificates or anything during Noah's time? Why should we expect to have all this historical evidence of him if none of that was done then?
That's like saying Washington didn't exist because we don't have his AOL screenname. They didn't do that sort of thing then, so we can't expect to have that evidence today, and we can't use the lack of such evidence to disprove its existence.
Noah was considered important, and his story passed down through generations. That's traditionally how any individual of importance was remembered and accounted for then. Not in books. Has the story changed? Most likely. But that doesn't mean he didn't exist.