• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Need help in understanding a paragraph.

The Crimson Universe

Active Member
I don't know if this is the right place to post about historical stuff. But anyway here it goes.
I was reading this book where the author says that, there was this great flood that took place around 4000 BC in Mesopotamia (as per archaeologists).

Now here comes the difficult part.

The author says that a certain semitic nomadic tribe had NOT reached that place (Mesopotamia) at 4000 BC, when the flood occured.

Then the author says ... And so, due to this reason, the nomadic tribes could not have survived this flood later to give their eyewitness testimony to it.

My question is ... If they didn't reach the place of flood in the first place, then how could they have not survived the flood. :confused:
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This was a local flood in Mesopotamia?
Why would a nomadic tribe in the area necessarily have been killed?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know if this is the right place to post about historical stuff. But anyway here it goes.
I was reading this book where the author says that, there was this great flood that took place around 4000 BC in Mesopotamia (as per archaeologists).

Now here comes the difficult part.

The author says that a certain semitic nomadic tribe had NOT reached that place (Mesopotamia) at 4000 BC, when the flood occured.

Then the author says ... And so, due to this reason, the nomadic tribes could not have survived this flood later to give their eyewitness testimony to it.

My question is ... If they didn't reach the place of flood in the first place, then how could they have not survived the flood. :confused:
The author is saying that since those tribes hadn't yet migrated to that area of the world, they could not have witnessed the flood and survived to tell the tale. They might have survived it, but as they weren't in the area, they couldn't have known about it to pass it on as a survivor's eyewitness account.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I don't know if this is the right place to post about historical stuff. But anyway here it goes.
I was reading this book where the author says that, there was this great flood that took place around 4000 BC in Mesopotamia (as per archaeologists).

Now here comes the difficult part.

The author says that a certain semitic nomadic tribe had NOT reached that place (Mesopotamia) at 4000 BC, when the flood occured.

Then the author says ... And so, due to this reason, the nomadic tribes could not have survived this flood later to give their eyewitness testimony to it.

My question is ... If they didn't reach the place of flood in the first place, then how could they have not survived the flood. :confused:
The way I take it, the author is just saying they did not 'survive the flood' because they weren't there in the first place.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
if salt water covers the land
most crops won't grow
famine sets in

but hey.....
 
Top