Maybe... I am a little jumpy at the moment. but in general, blunt & forceful is less good than polite
True - but it is my understanding that the settlements at the bottom of the Mediterranean is regarded by most as the origin of the Atlantis legend, because the island sunk into the ocean and was witnessed by on of the ancient Greek philosophers.
Ahhhh, the Atlantis legend... I thought that the undersea settlements were scattered about around the Med, not in one area (ie: an island). The other big possibility for Atlantis is Minoan Crete - It was a very advanced society, but when Santorini (its main naval base) blew up and disappeared into the sea it went downhill rapidly, and was effectively destroyed by pirates.
It was the other way round - the Med was higher than the Black Sea. The flood affected the land around the Black Sea. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Not the creation of the Med, but the linking of the Med to the Atlantic by the breaching of the land bridge which used to exist between Spain and Africa. But since that happened 5 million years ago, it's a little old to qualify Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Santorini, was a minor state, probably semi-independent-we don't know for sure. There were several naval bases in Crete and each was connected to each one of the major palaces. The island of Santorini was a huge Volcano that erupted very viciously around 1600 BC and thus sinking most pf the island into the sea. The following tsunami hit hard the Greek coasts inflicting great damage to coastal cities. This hurt badly Cretan trade that probably was followed by political instability as the palaces sustained damages and needed to be rebuilt. When they recovered ,however, they reestablished their power soon rebuilding their palaces in a more formidable way. [/code]
I'm mostly wondering what you are doing on an internet forum when you don't care what other people think... All the explanations above about the Ark of Noah and the Flood seem to come down to one thing: there was an historical event similar to the Biblical tale but smaller in scale, which was then blown out of proportion by oral tradition and the forming of myth and legend as the basis of several different cultures. I think this is very likely. It does not mean that the Bible is wholly untrue, but it does point at one very obvious conclusion - the Bible (or at least the Old Testament) is made up of regional legends and myths that aren't necessarily any more true than any other but similar legends and myths.
I thought we'd covered this already - 'the world' to Noah meant 'the known world' which essentially meant 'the area you live in'. Which is the bit that got flooded. Hence, the world was flooded. As a parallel - had a bizarre disaster struck only Europe and North Africa in the 10th Century, Chroniclers would have said 'this bizarre disaster struck the whole world', when in fact the vast majority of the whole world remained unaffected.