Yep, I have. Two pieces in comment.

ONE. We don't know the age of the oral tradition behind the Noah story, so we don't really know for sure whether it was before or after the other flood account. Since we don't know the flood event to which the narrative refers, and we don't know how long this story was being told from one generation to another, we just can't say.

The other flood stories are from Babylon (Atrahasis Epic), Sumer (Eridu Genesis), and Assyria (Gilgamesh Epic).

Babylon (Atrahasis):

[list]* The gods (particularly Enlil) decide to wipe out humanity because they're so noisy. Other gods (Ea) disagree.
* Enki (another god) warns humanity to build a boat to survive.
* One builds an ark and puts animals on board[/list]

Sumer (Eridu Genesis):

[list]* Enki, the deity, warns the king of a coming flood and he tells him to build an ark.
* It rains 7 days and 7 nights
* The waters recede and the king makes sacrifices.[/list]

Assyria (Gilgamesh): (3rd millennium BC)

[list]* Starts with fighting men, prostitutes, wrestling matches, and reconciliation.
* The goddess Ishtar wants a relationship with Gilgamesh, but he refuses. She's angry.
* Her father, Anu, kills Enkidu, Gilgamesh's new friend.
* Gilgamesh wants to know the secret of eternal life from Uta-napishti, the only human that has eternal life.
* the gods want to destroy humanity because they're so noisy.
* Ea warns humanity to build a boat to survive, and to put animals on board.
* The flood is so extreme it even scares the gods.
* Gilgamesh releases 3 birds.
* The waters recede and Gilgamesh offers sacrifices[/list]

TWO. There are as many differences as similarities.

The similarities:

[list]* The general plot lines
* The anger of the gods
* The ark, the animals, the flood waters
* sacrifice after the flood[/list]

The differences:

[list]* Many differences in details: length and duration of flood, size and shape of ark, the reason for the flood, the number and identity of the people on the ark, the order of birds sent out.
* The portrayal of the gods. In the Bible there is one God, who is entering into a covenant to assure that the world will maintain order and stability. In Mesopotamia, the gods are in competition/conflict with each other.
* The number of gods. In the Bible there is one; everywhere else there are multiple.
* The reason for the flood: human sin (Bible) vs. humanity an annoyance (the others).
* The extent of the flood: In the Bible, hyperbolically the whole world. Mesopotamia: uncertain. Gilgamesh: partial. Atrahasis: total destruction.
* The length of the flood: Mesopotamia: 7 days. Bible: 40 days.
* Identification of the hero: All different: a king, a normal human, a righteous human, a priest.
* What and who are being spared
* Description of the boat
* Materials of the boat
* The mechanism of the flood
* The kinds of birds and order of birds
* different reasons for the sacrifice
* The fate of the hero after the flood
* Very different theological messages in the story[/list]

It seems everyone in the ancient world knew there was a flood.The story seems to go way back to a period before the invention of writing. The similarities don't mean that Noah is a straight-up rip off. Every culture will give the historical account their own shape, turning out vastly different interpretations. It seems that the story of an actual event in history past is interpreted and written about by the various cultures.

We all know Donald Trump is president, but the stories you will hear about him will differ depending on to whom you speak. It doesn't mean Trump isn't historical or that my assessment is a rip off from yours, with some similarities and differences.

There are enough similarities in the stories to suggest a common tradition, but enough differences that we can confidently conclude Noah is not a straight-up rip off.

Have you actually read the other flood account? It’s clear that Noah is a straight up rip off.

> The Edict of Milan made Christianity legal, but it was established as the state religion around 340 CE, 15 years after the first ecumenical council of Nicea.

Your point was "Buddhism or Zoroastrianism would likely be the dominant religions if it wasn't for the Romans elevating a popular religion and the strict adherence to ecumenical council decisions that followed." Buddhism or Zoroastrianism were not competing for dominance. Christianity won out over mythology.

> The flood basin was centered on shirrupak about 2100 years before the book of genesis was written talking about all of the character found within it. This includes Adam, Abraham, Enoch, and Noah.

The many differences between the accounts suggest a common source rather than borrowing. I am never surprised to find that historical records have a common source. It has yet to be shown there was any borrowing. Anyone who suggests borrowing still has to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation, so much so that we end up with vastly different narratives with only some match in details. Both the Babylonians and the Israelites mark the Flood as the end of an age. Genesis is obviously the more historical account on the basis of meteorology, geophysics, and timing alone. What we most likely have is two literary and theological perspectives on a single actual event.

> The flood basin was centered on shirrupak about 2100 years before the book of genesis was written talking about all of the character found within it. This includes Adam, Abraham, Enoch, and Noah.

OK, we have an ancient flood basin. There's nothing in that, then, to support the thesis that Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham are fictional.

> Around the time of king Josiah the book of Deuteronomy was "found" introducing us to Elijah, Moses, David, Samson, and Solomon as well as a few people that likely existed like Gideon and Samuel.

You put "found" in quotes as if it were written then. The evidence we have is to the contrary. And we have proof of David from the 9th c. BC.

> The first part of the book of Isaiah is dated to around 750 BCE as are the last half of Micah and the books of Amos and Hosea.

I date Isaiah to about 735-700.

> The books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel, Chronicles written between 680 and 450 BCE.

I date the Pentateuch to about 1200 BC. Joshua probably late 7th century. Judges in about 1000 BC. Samuel unknown and probably unknowable, and Chronicles to 450-400.

> Pentatuech was coming together parts of it were very polytheistic, then monolatrist, and finally point to the strict monotheism

There are theories about this from Mark Smith and others, but nothing can be proved.

> 450 BCE and the Persian Empire - and when the book of Daniel was being written.

The date of Daniel's writing is unknown, but I still take the prophet Daniel (600 BC) as its tradent. I'm not aware of any evidence that makes me doubt that Daniel was the source of the material, even though we don't know when it was written.

> ...religious book points to theological mythology for the cultures and time periods in which they were written.

The Bible is distinctly different than the mythologies of other cultures. It has a whole different flavor and nature to it.

> The children of god came down from heaven and had sex with daughters of men. This sounds a lot like lesser gods or angels having sex with humans making giants and a flood that wiped the slate clean yet failed to kill the giants.

Uh, did you read what I said in my last post? This is the most unlikely interpretation of the possibilities, and the one that sounds most mythological, granting it an even lesser possibility. More likely, it is the royal heroes of the culture, as the text says (Gn. 6.4).

> Obviously a problem unless you scale the flood back to historical proportions, but in doing so you also run into the problem of a boat that couldn't float carrying all of those animals.

No, we don't run into a problem. The boat is to house a vast collection of local animals. It was designed like a barge. A large barge with Noah in charge. : )

> What do these stories tell us? They provide a metaphor for the brokenness of mankind, the wrath of God, the sacrifices to sustain his anger, and his child sent to be an everlasting sacrifice.

They do tell us those things, but much more as well. They are not only metaphors but also historical events of God at work in history to separate out a people for Himself.

> If we step back from this and try to establish a rational person for any of these people we run into the problem of only having mythology to work with and nothing which establishes their historicity except for what is probably not even true.

I couldn't disagree more strongly, as you can tell, and I > The Edict of Milan made Christianity legal, but it was established as the state religion around 340 CE, 15 years after the first ecumenical council of Nicea.

Your point was "Buddhism or Zoroastrianism would likely be the dominant religions if it wasn't for the Romans elevating a popular religion and the strict adherence to ecumenical council decisions that followed." Buddhism or Zoroastrianism were not competing for dominance. Christianity won out over mythology.

> The flood basin was centered on shirrupak about 2100 years before the book of genesis was written talking about all of the character found within it. This includes Adam, Abraham, Enoch, and Noah.

The many differences between the accounts suggest a common source rather than borrowing. I am never surprised to find that historical records have a common source. It has yet to be shown there was any borrowing. Anyone who suggests borrowing still has to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation, so much so that we end up with vastly different narratives with only some match in details. Both the Babylonians and the Israelites mark the Flood as the end of an age. Genesis is obviously the more historical account on the basis of meteorology, geophysics, and timing alone. What we most likely have is two literary and theological perspectives on a single actual event.

> The flood basin was centered on shirrupak about 2100 years before the book of genesis was written talking about all of the character found within it. This includes Adam, Abraham, Enoch, and Noah.

OK, we have an ancient flood basin. There's nothing in that, then, to support the thesis that Adam, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham are fictional.

> Around the time of king Josiah the book of Deuteronomy was "found" introducing us to Elijah, Moses, David, Samson, and Solomon as well as a few people that likely existed like Gideon and Samuel.

You put "found" in quotes as if it were written then. The evidence we have is to the contrary. And we have proof of David from the 9th c. BC.

> The first part of the book of Isaiah is dated to around 750 BCE as are the last half of Micah and the books of Amos and Hosea.

I date Isaiah to about 735-700.

> The books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel, Chronicles written between 680 and 450 BCE.

I date the Pentateuch to about 1200 BC. Joshua probably late 7th century. Judges in about 1000 BC. Samuel unknown and probably unknowable, and Chronicles to 450-400.

> Pentatuech was coming together parts of it were very polytheistic, then monolatrist, and finally point to the strict monotheism

There are theories about this from Mark Smith and others, but nothing can be proved.

> 450 BCE and the Persian Empire - and when the book of Daniel was being written.

The date of Daniel's writing is unknown, but I still take the prophet Daniel (600 BC) as its tradent. I'm not aware of any evidence that makes me doubt that Daniel was the source of the material, even though we don't know when it was written.

> ...religious book points to theological mythology for the cultures and time periods in which they were written.

The Bible is distinctly different than the mythologies of other cultures. It has a whole different flavor and nature to it.

> The children of god came down from heaven and had sex with daughters of men. This sounds a lot like lesser gods or angels having sex with humans making giants and a flood that wiped the slate clean yet failed to kill the giants.

Uh, did you read what I said in my last post? This is the most unlikely interpretation of the possibilities, and the one that sounds most mythological, granting it an even lesser possibility. More likely, it is the royal heroes of the culture, as the text says (Gn. 6.4).

> Obviously a problem unless you scale the flood back to historical proportions, but in doing so you also run into the problem of a boat that couldn't float carrying all of those animals.

No, we don't run into a problem. The boat is to house a vast collection of local animals. It was designed like a barge. A large barge with Noah in charge. :)

> What do these stories tell us? They provide a metaphor for the brokenness of mankind, the wrath of God, the sacrifices to sustain his anger, and his child sent to be an everlasting sacrifice.

They do tell us those things, but much more as well. They are not only metaphors but also historical events of God at work in history to separate out a people for Himself.

> If we step back from this and try to establish a rational person for any of these people we run into the problem of only having mythology to work with and nothing which establishes their historicity except for what is probably not even true.

I couldn't disagree more strongly, as you can tell, and I even have some evidence and support for what I claim.

The Edict of Milan made Christianity legal, but it was established as the state religion around 340 CE, 15 years after the first ecumenical council of Nicea.

Constantius II made rules enforcing a type of Semi-Arian Christianity and the Jews faced several severe restrictions and pagan practices were outlawed. His successor Julian, was the last pagan emperor. And then his successor Jovian reestablished Christianity as the state religion. He ruled from June 363 to February 364. The Edict of Milan was around 315 CE and wasn't when Christianity was established as the state religion. It came about through a couple emperors after Constantine.

Christianity was used as an attempt to bring an empire back together, but it was a little too late. The emperor was the pontifex maximus and passed that title onto the Catholic Pope. Before this time the emperor had total control over religious laws and eventually the holy Roman emperor was crowned by the Catholic church establishing the Pope as superior to the king in pretty much every European country, at least until the protestant reformation and the rise of Protestantism and the Anglican church of England.

This was also around the time of the Enlightenment.

I agree that there was definitely a local flood. The flood basin was centered on shirrupak about 2100 years before the book of genesis was written talking about all of the character found within it. This includes Adam, Abraham, Enoch, and Noah. Around the time of king Josiah the book of Deuteronomy was "found" introducing us to Elijah, Moses, David, Samson, and Solomon as well as a few people that likely existed like Gideon and Samuel.

The first part of the book of Isaiah is dated to around 750 BCE as are the last half of Micah and the books of Amos and Hosea. The books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, Samuel, Chronicles written between 680 and 450 BCE. A few stories might be older like the story about Abraham and Lot with Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt and the book of Job. Pentatuech was coming together parts of it were very polytheistic, then monolatrist, and finally point to the strict monotheism of 450 BCE and the Persian Empire - and when the book of Daniel was being written.

This is the time period of the rise of apocalytic Judaism and the stories related to kings, priests, and angels being chosen by god to lead them out of captivity- the Assyrian, Babylonians, and the Persians.

This sets the stage for the new testament and the stories written to update a religion for people in Babylonian captivity to a set of people being oppressed by the Romans and the pagan religious practices that were not fully eradicated until the 360s. These are the stories and the environment for the Jesus religion and even with a historical figure behind the myths that you haven't yet established the entirety of the bible, Quran, Upanishads, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, and every other religious book points to theological mythology for the cultures and time periods in which they were written. They explain the world, they appease the common people, and they set up rules said to come from a god. None of it actually established that a god exists or that the stories are historically reliable, yet they are filled with many stories that didn't happen as suggested.

The flood myth of Noah is very similar to the others, written after people were in constant contact with foreign countries having flood myths just like the one apparently being copied, and the stories about Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, and Solomon set the stage for the new testament theological myths pertaining to the son of God.

The children of god came down from heaven and had sex with daughters of men. This sounds a lot like lesser gods or angels having sex with humans making giants and a flood that wiped the slate clean yet failed to kill the giants. Obviously a problem unless you scale the flood back to historical proportions, but in doing so you also run into the problem of a boat that couldn't float carrying all of those animals. You have a man who was old making a giant boat that it took whole crews of people and modern machinery to replicate at the Ark Park.
What do these stories tell us? They provide a metaphor for the brokenness of mankind, the wrath of God, the sacrifices to sustain his anger, and his child sent to be an everlasting sacrifice. You are born broken and if you trust in a divine being you'll be rewarded. If we step back from this and try to establish a rational person for any of these people we run into the problem of only having mythology to work with and nothing which establishes their historicity except for what is probably not even true.

> The whole thing about jesus being an angel I also found on Bart Ehrman's blog

No surprise.

> The whole thing about jesus being an angel I also found on Bart Ehrman's blog

Not across all sides. Just with the new atheists willing to latch onto any perspective that gives academic credence to a position they presupposed.

> Jesus was considered an angel, but perhaps the head of the angels, like the archangel Michael.

This is patently false. Jesus was never considered an angel, even the head of the angels. Hebrews 1 shoots down that entire position, and no biblical text supports that Jesus was an angel.

> This is also apparent when the revelation of John of Patmos puts Jesus in the same apocalytic role that Michael had in the old testament apocalypse prophecies.

This is patently false. Revelation puts Jesus in the position of Son of Man, Lamb, Alpha & Omega, the Word of God, Faithful and True, King of kings and Lord of lords, the root and offspring of David, the bright and morning star, but NEVER angel.

> Jesus seems to replace Michael in nearly every way early on

This is patently false. Michael doesn't even appear in the book of Revelation until chapter 12, and then he only shows up once (12.7). Never again in the book. In Jude 9 Michael appears in similar fashion (doing battle with Satan), which seems to be his role in Daniel 10 & 12. It's Michael's role. Jesus's role in Revelation starts off as revealer (1.1), resurrected one (1.5), ruler of the kings of the earth (1.5), and redeemer (1.5; 5.6). To him belongs all power (1.6; 5.13). None of these are the role of Michael.

> then in the gospels he ... gains attributes of other lesser failed messiahs and priests.

This is patently false. Jesus does "gain" attributes from anywhere or anyone. He has no concern for other false or failed messiahs and gains nothing from them. Nor does he gain anything from failed priests.

> He is also apparently linked to the high priest Jesus/Joshua in Zechariah or the future person by the same name who is the other olive branch. The branch and the name refer to the same person who is supposed to free the Jews from their oppressors.

There is some linkage between Jesus and Joshua in Zechariah. The Zechariah texts are considered to be messianic prophecy. Joshua prefigures Jesus.

> The third option for the translation is that they received Paul as a messenger of God, the supreme messenger, Jesus Christ.

The point is not that they thought he was Jesus but that they treated him as well as they would have treated Jesus himself.

> he is an angelic being who is unknown to all until the apostles reveal the gospel that has been revealed to them.

This is patently false. Hebrews 1 effectively speaks directly against this very argument. It's also untrue from the nativity on. Jesus is prophesied as the Son of the Most High, the Messiah who will inherit David's throne, the one who will reign forever as God (Lk. 1.31-34). He is announced as the Savior Messiah (Lk. 2.11). He is baptized as the Son of God (Mt. 3.17). He is not angelic. And he is not unknown until the apostles reveal the gospel that has been revealed to them. Jesus himself is the revelation of the Father by his own teaching and testimony (Jn. 14.7-30). He makes Himself known long before the apostles are filled with the Holy Spirit to announce it to the larger world.

> Even if they talk about him as a man, they are still talking about a message that nobody on Earth gave to them.

This is patently false. Peter (Acts 2.22; 3.15) and John (Jn. 1.14; 1 Jn. 1.1-3) and all the apostles (Jn. 14.9-11) speak from the experience of their eyes and ears. They got their message from Jesus Himself, and they were empowered by the Holy Spirit to preach it.

> They don't pretend to be first hand accounts or even second hand testimony from humans who knew these things first hand.

This is patently false. Peter (Acts 2.22; 3.15) and John (Jn. 1.14; 1 Jn. 1.1-3) and all the apostles (Jn. 14.9-11) speak from the experience of their eyes and ears. Luke got his from eyewitnesses (Lk. 1.1-3).

> They either made the story up about a guy based on old testament prophecy or they made up stories about some guy based on old testament prophecy.

This is not plausible. The Gospels don't bear out a possibility of this. No one in an honor/shame culture would make up the crucifixion for their messiah. They quote Jesus a number of times with sayings that could inhibit their cause. All four Gospels tell of Peter's failure in denying Jesus. Mark's Gospel has nothing good to say about the disciples in the whole book except Peter's confession. All four Gospels portray the disciples as lacking understanding and being fearful and ultimately disloyal at his crucifixion. You'd be hard pressed to imagine why the disciples or anyone who looked to them for leadership or spiritual insight would make up these stories. They wouldn't write a Gospel where a virgin gave birth, shepherds proclaimed his birth, and women were the first at the tomb. They wouldn't write a book of outrageous miracles in the very country where eyewitnesses still abounded. They wouldn't make up a resurrection because there was no such possibility in Greek, Roman, or Jewish theology.

> With a historical guy you might speculate about why they had to make him born in Bethlehem even though he was from Nazareth

This is patently untrue. He was born in Bethlehem. Both Matthew 2.1 and Luke 2.6 claim Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. There is no evidence to the contrary.

> He doesn't seem to be from that city in any of Paul's epistles yet a Greek author who knew nothing of Jewish rituals and geography places him there.

Matthew, a Levite Jew, also places his birth in Bethlehem (Mt. 2.1). Paul only speaks of His birth as being to a Jewish woman (Gal. 4.4).

> The gospels that come after that one don't bother to get rid of that location in the three in the modern canon.

This is an illegitimate claim. No one knows the exact order the Gospels were written, nor even exactly when they were written. No one.

> This is where the problems with historicity arise.

Your case and "facts" are more the problem. There is no substantiation for anything you have said, even 5, 6, 7 exchanges into the conversation. Everyone is entitled to her own opinion, but not to her own facts.

> There isn't really anything that can be trusted to refer to a man who actually existed when the same types of stories are written about people who never did.

We've covered this ground. In support of Jesus's historicity, We have (in order of their credibility) Thallus, Pliny, Suetonius, Josephus, The Egerton Papyrus, the James Ossuary, Tacitus, Ignatius of Antioch, and Paul. In rebuttal you have offered nothing: no evidence, no support, no facts.

> If we had something beyond the myths

Presumably you only assume they are myths because you presuppose that miracles are impossible. That's circular reasoning.

> The majority of people described in the same way never existed - Harry Potter, Darth Vader, Elijah, the archangel Michael, superman

The Gospels are nothing like Harry Potter, Darth Vader, or superman.

> The ones who we know for sure existed have statues, pictures, money, books they wrote, and contemporary literature describing them as ordinary people.

These are not the only criteria for believability, nor for historicity.

The whole thing about jesus being an angel I also found on Bart Ehrman's blog ... a person who pushes for the historical Jesus being an apocalyptic preacher. It is a passage that is growing in popularity across all sides. Jesus was considered an angel, but perhaps the head of the angels, like the archangel Michael. This is also apparent when the revelation of John of Patmos puts Jesus in the same apocalytic role that Michael had in the old testament apocalypse prophecies. Jesus seems to replace Michael in nearly every way early on and then in the gospels he replaces John the Baptist and gains attributes of other lesser failed messiahs and priests. He is also apparently linked to the high priest Jesus/Joshua in Zechariah or the future person by the same name who is the other olive branch. The branch and the name refer to the same person who is supposed to free the Jews from their oppressors.

The third option for the translation is that they received Paul as a messenger of God, the supreme messenger, Jesus Christ. It doesn't necessarily mean he is a cherubim, nephilim, ophilim, or any of those other types of angels but he is an angelic being who is unknown to all until the apostles reveal the gospel that has been revealed to them. Even if they talk about him as a man, they are still talking about a message that nobody on Earth gave to them. They got it through scripture and revelation and they reference scripture and revelation when it comes to the epistles and the gospels. They don't pretend to be first hand accounts or even second hand testimony from humans who knew these things first hand. Paul is highly revered because he has a lot of information that drives theology forward.

Now that doesn't automatically imply there wasn't some guy, but it does imply the way they describe him isn't in historical context leaving the two most rationalized options. They either made the story up about a guy based on old testament prophecy or they made up stories about some guy based on old testament prophecy. With a historical guy you might speculate about why they had to make him born in Bethlehem even though he was from Nazareth, but with a fictional character you might have to wonder why he was supposed to be from Nazareth in the first place. He doesn't seem to be from that city in any of Paul's epistles yet a Greek author who knew nothing of Jewish rituals and geography places him there. The gospels that come after that one don't bother to get rid of that location in the three in the modern canon. It seems odd, but not unheard of to keep a fictional story mostly in tact just to spice it up.

This is where the problems with historicity arise. There isn't really anything that can be trusted to refer to a man who actually existed when the same types of stories are written about people who never did. If we had something beyond the myths or he was described in the stories like he was an ordinary person then we wouldn't have any reason to doubt. It is probability. The majority of people described in the same way never existed - Harry Potter, Darth Vader, Elijah, the archangel Michael, superman. A few regular people are described in the same way - Julius Caesar, Sargon of Akkad, Imhotep, George Washington. The ones who we know for sure existed have statues, pictures, money, books they wrote, and contemporary literature describing them as ordinary people. The others just have a bunch of myths. Jesus might have existed but there isn't any real way to be certain and he is described just like people who never existed so it is reasonable to think people made him up.

> what do you think it says about the giants?

"Nephilim" possibly means "giants" (a translation derived from the Septuagint and the Vulgate), but that translation is dubious. The term possibly comes from the root *npl*, means "to fall upon," i.e., invaders, tyrants. Various other meanings have been suggested, such as warriors of strength and prowess (cf. Num. 13.33). The Numbers verse suggest that they were a taller people, like the Dinka or the Tutsi of Africa, which has caused some to translate the term as "giants." It's more likely that they were heroic warriors, as the rest of the verse (Gn. 6.4) says.

> A global flood that killed everyone

Yet another reason to consider that the Bible doesn't require the flood to be global. How could the Nephilim survive if no one survived?

In Gn. 41.57 (same book, same author), we read that "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe in all the world." Was Brazil experiencing famine? Did the Australians come to Joseph? No. "All" means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.

Also, Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the...fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Did that include the Mayans? The people of Madagascar? I don't think anyone would argue that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan, and perhaps a few others.

There are plenty of other references like this throughout the Bible (Acts 17.6; 19.35; 24.5; Rom. 1.8). We have to give serious consideration that quite possibly "all" doesn't mean "global".

> The wickedness of mankind and the angels having sex with the daughters of men creating giants were the two reasons for the flood to take place which would last 40 days and 40 nights.

Genesis 6.1-2 are notorious difficult to translate and interpret, and scholars have yet to figure it out. The most reasonable explanation I've heard is that it is royal heroes of antiquity. Even in Israel sometimes kings are termed "sons of God." In the ancient Near East kings were commonly understood as having a filial relationship to deity, and were often considered to have been engendered by deity. Many cultures believed in the divine descent of kings. The concept shows up in many inscriptions. Gilgamesh is portrayed as 2/3 god and 1/3 man (1.48) and “flesh of the gods” (9.49). It is common for kings to be portrayed as having divine parentage, but there's also the possibility that it's speaking of royal elites.

The interpretation that it's angels having sex with man women doesn't hold water. The New Testament teaches that angels don't marry (Mt. 22.29-30; Mk. 12.24-25; Lk. 20.34-36). That interpretation also creates the problem of humans being punished for the sins of angels, which is not just. In addition...

[list]* Cohabitation between angels and humans has no immediately obvious connection with the purposes of Genesis.
* An angelic intrusion is out of place in this sequence of episodes recounting the advance of human sin.
* Prior to this text, no mention is made of angels—not even of their creation.
* The NT indicates that the angels do not function as sexual beings.
* Judgment comes on men, not angels, even though this interpretation would make them (angels) the perpetrators.
* Angels are never called “sons of God” anywhere in the Pentateuch.[/list]

So it's not likely talking about angels having sex with human women.

> Noah finds himself atop a mountain releasing three birds (because he couldn't just look over the side to see if there was any water beside him)

The birds have specific purpose. The raven (Gn. 8.5-7) lives on carrion. He was not expecting it to return. If it does, there isn't habitable land anywhere yet. The dove has a limited ability for sustained flight, in contrast to the raven. It's a low-flying bird. It will only perch on places that are dry and clean. It requires plants for food. As long as it returns, there is no landing place. Ancient navigators were known to use birds to find land, but Noah is not trying to find land, he's already on it. He needs to know if there is habitable land nearby.

> It seems odd that they all seem to talk about the same event, which we know wasn't global.

I agree that it wasn't global. The story is characterized by several hyperbolic devices (the extent of the flood, the size of the boat).

> This type of story is mythical in nature

The biblical story isn't mythical, and differs in significant ways from the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh Epics, though they are probably all telling their version of the same historical occurrence. The Babylonians and Mesopotamians put it in the mythological context, while the Bible puts it as a theologically-interpreted historical event.

> The creation story

The biblical creation story shares almost nothing (or completely nothing) in common with the ancient mythographies. In those the earth and human come from the wars and sex of the gods.

> the tower story

The tower story relates the conquering of Sumer by the Babylonians in the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium. It's a historical event.

> his is just Noah, but the majority of the other characters I said don't exist are based on these types of things.

That's not good enough. The patriarchs and prophets of the old testament are nothing like the mythographies of the surrounding cultures. Though you've pointed out some similarities between Sargon and Moses, I've shown that similarity doesn't mean derivation, and that the common elements of the two stories are practices so common in the various ancient cultures that there's no reason to think the two are related. Jimmy Carter was wealthy and became an American president. Donald Trump was wealthy and became and American president. Therefore Donald Trump's story is just a copy of Jimmy Carter's? Of course not.

> yet nobody ever mentions [Jesus] until 40 years after he died

The majority of writings from the era have been lost. We have only half of Tacitus's work. All but a fragment of Thallus's *Mediterranean History* is gone. The writings of Asclepiades of Mendes are gone. Nicholas of Damascus (the secretary of Herod the Great) wrote his *Universal History* in 144 books: none have survived. Papias's work is lost. Josephus's originals are gone (except for what we have through Eusebius). Quadratus wrote to Emperor Hadrian—all lost. That our lack of extra biblical references about Jesus is evidence against him is disingenuous at best and plain false at worst.

> If it wasn't for the Romans establishing it as the state religion

Another mistake. Rome didn't establish Christianity as a state religion. In the Edict of Milan Emperor Constantine allowed tolerance for Christianity in the Empire, but he (nor any future emperor) never established Christianity as the state religion.

> My conclusion still stands

You have yet to substantiate any part of your thesis.

[list]* You haven't presented a case proving Jesus to be fictional. I have presented a case from Roman and Jewish historians evidencing that he was.
* No one has any evidence for (except for the Bible) or against Elijah's historicity. You haven't substantiated your case there.
* David. The Tel Dan Stele gives evidence of a historical David. You have given nothing in rebuttal.
* Solomon. There is no evidence for him, nor any against. You haven't substantiated your case.
* The judges. The least known period of Canaan. No one has any evidence here, you included.
* Moses. I've given some questionable evidence for him, you've given nothing to substantiate your case.
* Abraham. There is no evidence for him, no evidence against him. You haven't substantiated your case.
* Noah. Neither of us believe in a global flood. The records we have from the ancient Near East could easily indicate the historical occurrence of a massive flood, a boat, and animals. You haven't substantiated your case that it couldn't possibly have happened.[/list]

Your conclusion doesn't stand. You haven't supported your thesis.

Since you are using the bible to "prove" the flood happened, what do you think it says about the giants? A global flood that killed everyone and yet people survive and lead to the giants like Goliath who David knocks out with a stone and decapitated with his own sword.

The wickedness of mankind and the angels having sex with the daughters of men creating giants were the two reasons for the flood to take place which would last 40 days and 40 nights. 150 days later god remembers Noah is still floating around in his boat and then Noah finds himself atop a mountain releasing three birds (because he couldn't just look over the side to see if there was any water beside him) just like in the stories about Utnapishtim, Ziusudra, and Atrahasis.

It seems odd that they all seem to talk about the same event, which we know wasn't global. Not just because it would be inhumane, but because various cultures that lived right through it, geology, thermodynamics, and physics. That much water would boil under the pressure and the boat would float better on its roof than on its keel. There is also a problem with most of the animals that lived about 5000 years ago or more recently in Australia, North America, Antarctica, and Africa were never in the Middle East and such a boat could never hold all of them. There couldn't be a time when there was just two of every "kind" either because of the genetic problems that would cause and because of the rate by which life diversifies.

There was definitely a local flood around Shirrupak with some people linking it to a meteorite in the Indian Ocean and the water rushing up the Tigris and Euphrates faster than expected, especially in the southern part of that region where the flood stories originated. The flood was devastating to people living there, but blown completely out of proportion. Different cultures have had local floods and exaggerated them and gave various ways for life to have survived. Sometimes just a family riding on a boat or hiding away in a mountain castle. Sometimes they just had loads of sex. Sometimes they cast stones over their shoulders.

This type of story is mythical in nature and about all that can be justified from it is a local devastating flood in shirrupak that was talked about in a community from the region. Apparently the flood was so important for them that they created stories about it, perhaps when people asked them questions they couldn't answer. How did anyone survive? I don't know for sure, but perhaps ... (followed by a random guess). Get the basic start to the story like some guy built a boat, and then you have the device for saving animals, treasures, etc. You have a reason to make an excuse the gods destroyed humanity because they were loud and noisy. You have a flood you can make cover the entire planet (even when you thought the earth was flat).

The creation story, the tower story, and the flood story come from Assyria and Babylonian myths once attributed to Enlil and As now being attributed to Yahweh and El Elyon and other canaanite deities. Some stories apparently has god open his windows and another it simply rains for a really long time. On one version it rains for 40 days and 40 nights and in another he forgets Noah is riding on a boat until 150 days later. Combine these stories and you get the biblical narrative about Noah and he turns out to just be another Utnapishtim in a region that wasn't even affected by the flood that originated the myth.

This is just Noah, but the majority of the other characters I said don't exist are based on these types of things. If there was some guy, he wouldn't know the stories were about him. He might have a different name and he is completely unrelated to anything he is said to have done. This is the same way with Jesus, even for those who hold onto a minimal historicity based on what they ambiguously determine to be reliable evidence such as a brother, a death, and his hometown being Nazareth because of the hoops the gospel writers had to jump through to make a Nazarene born in Bethlehem in Matthew and Luke. For minimal mythicism, my position, these bits of information are unreliable and you can create many rational versions of Jesus ambiguously determining any of it to be reliably accurate at referring to a guy who existed. This is how Bart Ehrman comes to him being an apocalyptic preacher and how others have determined that he was an exorcist, a lunatic, a failed military leader, one of the various minor prophets mentioned by Josephus. Any of these could have existed and there were definitely people in every group. What makes Jesus different is that, unlike them, he is portrayed as a person performing many miracles in front of large crowds of people, yet nobody ever mentions him until 40 years after he died and the people who mention a figure by the same name before that they talk about a hidden message, revealed scriptures, divine revelation, and a guy who is coming soon implying he didn't come yet. This Jesus makes sense and so does some random insignificant human being and neither of them support the mythology attributed to him in the gospels, making the religion a man made invention based on old testament human fabrication updating a dying religion to fit the time period. If it wasn't for the Romans establishing it as the state religion it would have completely died off and we probably wouldn't have any of the other religions like Islam or Baha'i.

Buddhism or Zoroastrianism would likely be the dominant religions if it wasn't for the Romans elevating a popular religion and the strict adherence to ecumenical council decisions that followed. If Jesus was still discussed we'd have dozens of versions of him like we had almost 2000 years ago and we wouldn't have people considering any of them to be historically reliable.

My conclusion still stands, that all of these religions, as with every other are human invention to describe the unknown based on fables, falsehoods, and unsupported assumptions. When these religions gained enough popularity they were used to control societies of people who didn't know any better, and even some early church leaders said that the Jewish scriptures are allegorical but should be preached as literal truth because the common person is too stupid to understand metaphor.

> You didn't look very hard.

I'm hoping to motivate you to more responsible scholarship. For instance, the NIV "as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself" doesn't claim, assert, hint, or imply that Jesus was an angel. Paul is giving several options. Option 1: they treated Paul as if he were an angel. Option 2: they treated Paul as if he were Jesus Christ himself. When Matthew 25.31-46 says "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mind you did for me," it is not claiming that Jesus was sick and in prison (25.35-40). Nor is Paul claiming Jesus is an angel. Read 1 Samuel 29.9 "I know that you have been pleasing in my eyes as an angel of God." Achish is not saying David is an angel. Also look at 2 Sam. 14.17 & 20; 19.27. Read Zech. 12.8. Paul is not claiming that Jesus is an angel.

Look at the context. Paul had some kind of illness (Gal. 4.13). He appreciated that they didn't treat him with contempt or scorn (v. 14), but instead treated him like an angel, or as they would have treated Jesus Christ himself. Notice that the Greek does NOT say, "you received me as if I were an angel of God, Jesus Christ." What it says is "you received me as if I were an angel of God, as Christ Jesus." The word "as" appears twice, separating the two references.

> I'm not exactly fluent in Greek,

I am.

> but again he equates Jesus to an angel

He's not. The word "as" (ὡς) appears once before angel, and again before Christ. Therefore "Christ Jesus" is not an explanation of who the angel is, but a separate category of possibilities of how they were treating him.

> but this language is complex enough that you can take just the last two words and it translates to "christians" but in a more full context these say the angel of God appeared to him as Christ or that he was an taken in like an angel of God, a Christian.

The Greek is not complex, but straight forward.

> that you can take just the last two words

It's 3 words: ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν (as Christ Jesus) as a separate category from ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ, as an angel of God.

> but in a more full context these say the angel of God appeared to him as Christ or that he was an taken in like an angel of God, a Christian.

The fuller context does not lead to this conclusion. They cannot possibly be construed as saying that the angel of God appears to him as Christ. Impossible. The grammar and terminology simply doesn't allow it.

> but I'm sure Young's Literal Translation is a lot closer to a Greek to english translation than I could attempt to grasp

Here's the Greek text: καὶ τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου οὐκ ἐξουθενήσατε οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε, ἀλλὰ ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ ἐδέξασθέ με, ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν.

[list]καὶ = and
τὸν πειρασμὸν = the trial, the temptation,
ὑμῶν = of or to you
ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου = in my flesh
οὐκ ἐξουθενήσατε = You did not treat me with contempt
οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε = nor with scorn or loathing
ἀλλὰ = Strong adversative. "Instead; rather."
ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ ἐδέξασθέ με = As an angel of God you welcomed (received) me
ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν = as Christ Jesus.[/list]

The Young's Literal Translation says: "and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus;"

Yep, that's the literal translation all right. The first phrase might more accurately be put "And your trial in my flesh," but Young's tries hard to put it in understandable English. What it categorically does NOT say is that Jesus is an angel.

> The global flood never happened. The story is a myth.

I'm not going to look at your links. I'm conversing with you. If you want to make your case, then YOU make it.

I don't believe in a global flood but rather in a largely regional one, as I have explained. I agree that a global flood never happened. But Noah could easily have been historical, and there is evidence he was (from the biblical account and the other epics about him and the flood), and the flood was a historical event, just not global. Not a myth, though. Using a literary form characteristic to some parts of the Bible, the story is hyperbolic.

You didn't look very hard.

ANGEL:

Galatians 4.14 in the NIV, KJV, ESV, NET, WYC, ASV, AMP, CSB, EHV, EXB, GNV, HCSB, AKJV, YLT, OJB

NOT AN ANGEL:

ISV, TLB, GW, PHILLIPS, NOG, TLV, NTV

AMBIGUOUS:

GNT, JUB, NLV

All of the above verses show a link between Jesus and the angels but some of them include a word to differentiate him from the angels and some don't directly call him an angel but allow him to be. The mojority of these passages, including the literal translation consider him to be an angel.

[url]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+4%3A14&version=WHNU[/url]
[url]https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+4%3A14&version=TR1550[/url]

I'm not exactly fluent in Greek, but again he equates Jesus to an angel but this language is complex enough that you can take just the last two words and it translates to "christians" but in a more full context these say the angel of God appeared to him as Christ or that he was an taken in like an angel of God, a Christian. I don't even know where to begin as far as understanding it, but I'm sure Young's Literal Translation is a lot closer to a Greek to english translation than I could attempt to grasp. That translation has him calling Jesus an angel. It is likely the other translations were due to bias and not wanting to consider Jesus just another angel.

The global flood never happened. The story is a myth.

Flood: [url]https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXJ4dsU0oGMJP95iZJqEjmc5oxY5r6BzP[/url]
World Mythology: [url]https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNCG9Vq7vdvJytS-F-xGi7_[/url]

Check out video 16 in this series about the flood.