Nineveh said:
A picture of Mt Olympus doesn't even make you consider you could be wrong about believing:
"I don't think the Greeks who knew thier mythology thought Mt Olympus was located here on earth. It was simply a symbolic place where their dieties dwelt. Much the same as our idea of Heaven. The only difference is you and I don't believe in their dieties or that Mt Olympus really exists. We could be wrong."
Olympus does not look inhabitable. Perhaps it was just a symbol to the Greeks?
Nineveh said:
Why should that be the only place on earth the flood didn't affect?
So far, I have seen no evidence for a global flood, and this supports my idea. Your idea rest on the assumption that there was a global flood, which I do not accept, yet.
Nineveh said:
Are you purposely missing the point?
No. Are you?
Nineveh said:
Anyway, aren't you a couple rivers short for your belief system?
Perhaps you believe that because your elevator doesn't go to the top floor.
Nineveh said:
Of course Ur. But it appeared you meant Eden. That's why I asked.
Maybe that's because you assume that theses are the rivers spoken of in Eden instead of Noah and those that followed naming the rivers.
If it was a local flood, why did Noah and his sons spend hundreds of years building an ark? Surely in that amount of time they could have moved far far away and back again.
Perhaps your not seeing the logic here. My view of history is supported by the fact that Ur, Euphrates, Tigris, and the original land of the Hebrews are found near each other.
Your model rests squarely on your unBiblical assumption that Noah and his family named two rivers with the same name as the place where his ancestor came from. You are claiming that the Euphrates and Tigris spoken of in Genesis are not the in the same place currently. You see my ideas are based on sound reasoning. Yours are based on wild and unBiblical assumptions.