4kings:



..

wow... good points to note... have you heard of the kaballah?... its jewish mysticism... they claim that moses passed down the secrets of the things that happened then through them

4kings:

Wowwww , you mean the ancient israelites that were recorded in eyptian history as just nomads who wondered from city to city and were plagiarised by the Sumerians that nations like Egyptians and ancient babylonians got some of their roots from.
Na wa oo

Can you give me a reason why you could possibly think the sumerians(a very great nation then btw) plagiarised the ancient israelites.

This is strawman argument. Don't tell me you cannot comprehend. Adam and all the patriarchs until Abraham were not Israelites.

Also noting that the story of existence of these Israelite is not as what is told today.

You mean the record of Israelite history in the Bible is not true? Prove it.

DoctorAlien:


There is about as much proof of all that I've said as there is for the claim that the book of Genesis may have plagiarized ancient Sumerian texts.

Let's hear yours, no matter how circumstantial they may be.

4kings:
The bible mentions the Egyptians 100s of times in different places(showing the effect Egypt had on them), but this powerful tribe of israelites(as depicted in the bible), was mentioned i think ONLY ONCE in Egyptian history, and ironically during the reign of King Merneptah son of Rameses and it states on a stone inscription that the tribe israelites(I.si.ri.ar) were one of the tribes conquered then.

Of course, Egypt had much impact on Israel. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt for centuries. Moreover, after the Exodus, they related with the Egyptians. So, it is not out of place that Egypt is mentioned many times in the Bible.

Your argument is biased in that it starts from a point which rules out the possibility of the fact that the events recorded in the Bible about Egypt could be true, and that the Egyptians could have tried to forge tales to cover up the embarrassing events recorded about them in the Bible.

It's really tiring arguing with people who don't even have a correct knowledge of history, not to talk of having a knowledge of the Bible and its teachings.

How can someone be confusing the Patriarchs like Adam, Seth, Enoch, Abraham with Israelites?

I put it to you, 4kings, that you did not even read the article about Egypt on amazingdiscoveries. Why did you not comment on the fact that the mummy which the Egyptians claimed was of the Pharoah that the Bible claims was drowned, on analysis, proved to be that of a young man, where as the Pharoah in question was nothing less than 80 years at his death?

Moreover, it was Tutmoses III who was drowned in the red sea, and not Rameses.

DoctorAlien:


Where did the Bible say that the sun stood still "so that the Jews can see their enemies and kill them"?

Can you prove that the Hebrew word translated "stand still" does not literally mean "be silent"?

You made the claim so you are the one that should prove it. The bible does not come close to the nonsense you and your apologist are trying to say.

DoctorAlien:


Of course, Egypt had much impact on Israel. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt for centuries. Moreover, after the Exodus, they related with the Egyptians. So, it is not out of place that Egypt is mentioned many times in the Bible.

Your argument is biased in that it starts from a point which rules out the possibility of the fact that the events recorded in the Bible about Egypt could be true, and that the Egyptians could have tried to forge tales to cover up the embarrassing events recorded about them in the Bible.

Seems you know little about history. According to the bible the ancient Israelites left Egypt and went to canaan, historically Canaan was still under Egyptian occupation at that time so it makes no sense at all. The Exodus is non historical.

DoctorAlien:
I put it to you, 4kings, that you did not even read the article about Egypt on amazingdiscoveries. Why did you not comment on the fact that the mummy which the Egyptians claimed was of the Pharoah that the Bible claims was drowned, on analysis, proved to be that of a young man, where as the Pharoah in question was nothing less than 80 years at his death?

Moreover, it was Tutmoses III who was drowned in the red sea, and not Rameses.

What's the meaning of this
Did you even read my post?

I commented on the mummy thing, what sort of accusation is this.You better go back and read what i wrote(funny you are accusing me of the stuff you did )
Here's what i said

Your link says that the egyptian disguised the mummy of tutmoses to save themselves from embarrasment and that he must have been 80 years when history records 54. SMH
So the whole of egypt then just happened to cover up the death of their king and his hosts, How??, why?? and from whom??

I hope you can see properly, right?

DoctorAlien:
This is strawman argument. Don't tell me you cannot comprehend. Adam and all the patriarchs until Abraham were not Israelites.

I doubt you really know the history of sumerians and thisyour patriachs.
Let me try to end this arguments with dating:
- The history of human writing started from this same sumerians we're talking about and this dates to about 3100BC
- One of your beloved Patriachs "Noah" according to the chronology of the bible is said to have been born and existed around 3000BC
- That means the flood took place around this same time.
- But the Sumerians story called the epic of gilgamesh(which i say the bible plagiarised) clearly happened years before they invented writing.
- So how is it possible for the Sumerians to plagiarize the flood story in Genesis if their(Sumerians) events took place years before Noah.

Also about the Creation story(Adam and Eve), the dating for this by the bible is said to have started around 4000BC but they were people living in the Mesopotamia (Ubaid) where the civilised ancient sumerians also lived, around and before this dating.

Let me see what you have to say before i go on...

You mean the record of Israelite history in the Bible is not true? Prove it.

Chill now.
Is that not what we are uncovering. -->step by step.

DoctorAlien:


Of course, Egypt had much impact on Israel. The Hebrews were slaves in Egypt for centuries. Moreover, after the Exodus, they related with the Egyptians. So, it is not out of place that Egypt is mentioned many times in the Bible.

Your argument is biased in that it starts from a point which rules out the possibility of the fact that the events recorded in the Bible about Egypt could be true, and that the Egyptians could have tried to forge tales to cover up the embarrassing events recorded about them in the Bible.

Where did this Israelites settle, the Egyptian records like i've told you states that they were wandering nomads.
Thankgod, dalaman has also ruled out the possiblity of canaan.
So over to you..

Wilgrea7:


wow... good points to note... have you heard of the kaballah?... its jewish mysticism... they claim that moses passed down the secrets of the things that happened then through them

I don't really know about kaballah.
Can you tell me more about these secrets?

don't argue with atheists. its pointless. if you chose to, then consider it within yourself "a mare intellectual sparing" and nothing more. even so then by all means go ahead.

The kind of spirit that controls them, are the spirit of rebellion. there learning most time is not out of a mind of "wanting to know" rather that of a belligerent mind that tries to sub verse authority. it makes for the worst kind of ignorance.

The majority of atheist here on naira land will always try to mock you as dumb and stupid. when you go toe to two with them. they try to make you see reasons with them even though its not yet obvious to them that reasons are not the only aspect that our whole being comprises off.

They kick against the bible and mock their characters even though no atheist living or dead have ever reach that height of biblical characters

from Joseph,/An Egyptian prime minister, to Moses a prince in one of the earliest know human civilisations, to David a King, to Solomon, one of the wisest know human to ever walk the earth.. just to name but a few. this are the calibre of people atheist mock. lol! now think and ask yourself who is really dumb? and don't even get me started on JESUS.

if any of you really want to know how great this Jesus is, all you simply have to do is Place his name side by side with any great name to ever walk the earth. probably then you would understand that those of us who call "him greatest of the greatest" are no fools.

Jesus is the greatest know name as far as human consciousness goes and you still think its a hoax.

with all your reasoning and knowledge and blah..blah.. ; until you can find me one greater name living or dead, known or unknown real or imagined! then by all means shut it!

Jesus resigns over you all!

DoctorAlien i've been checking online about the Harris and weeks analysis of the mummy and i can't see anything.
Can you please post a link where a press statement or any other online article was released about this.

@ DoctorAlien i've found something.
From the study also, there was also age discrepancy(of 10 years) for Amenhotep.

tutmosesIII started ruling at an infant age after the death of his father and reigned for 54 years, then we can say he lived for a range of 56-58years and the X-ray analysis showed that he lived for 40-45 years bringing about a maximum of 15-year difference.
The link you gave said he could have lived for up to 80 years, there is no reasonable evidence for this.

Here is a statement concerning Amenhotep from biblearchaeology.com

After an examination of the mummy of Amenhotep II, he was estimated to have died at 44 years of age,72 meaning that a 55-year lifespan exceeds the projections of the X-ray evidence, and thus is “an impossibly high result according to the medical evidence.”73 Yet Robins is convinced that when identifying a pharaoh’s age at death, there is good reason to cast doubt on X-ray evidence as a whole.74 Support for this criticism is found in the discrepancy over Thutmose III’s lifespan.

So clearly the X-Ray analysis by Harris and Weeks is not exactly very accurate.

4kings, don't let me conclude that you're in the same category with akintom when it comes to comprehension.

First, Moses put down the account of Creation, and all the other events that occurred up until his time in writing. Before he did this, Patriarchs like Adam, Seth, Enoch, etc. have been passing these stories down orally. It is also not improbable that these Patriarchs may have put these events down in writing, but the writings were all lost.

It is not a thing of surprise if the pagan Sumerians hear this story from these Patriarchs(as they were spreading the knowledge of the true GOD), and then twist it with their own fables and put it down in writing.

4kings,

How did you conclude that humans started writing about 3100 B.C? Can you prove that man did not write before 3100 B.C.?

How were you able to pin the date of the event contained in the epic of gilgamesh? How are you sure that the epic of gilgamesh actually happened?

Where is the proof of your claim that the Bible plagiarized the epic of gilgamesh?

What do you have to say about the fact that the oldest fragments of stones containing the epic of gilgamesh are date only about 2000 B.C.?

4kings:
tutmosesIII started ruling at an infant age...

Prove this.

DoctorAlien:
4kings, don't let me conclude that you're in the same category with akintom when it comes to comprehension.

First, Moses put down the account of Creation, and all the other events that occurred up until his time in writing. Before he did this, Patriarchs like Adam, Seth, Enoch, etc. have been passing these stories down orally. It is also not improbable that these Patriarchs may have put these events down in writing, but the writings were all lost.

It is not a thing of surprise if the pagan Sumerians hear this story from these Patriarchs(as they were spreading the knowledge of the true GOD), and then twist it with their own fables and put it down in writing.

You must be deluding yourself, to think that the nauseating and obfuscating trash you spill on NL, deserves comprehension effort.

4kings, below is a piece I found on the Ubaid civilization.

[url]watchmeasidream..com/2012/03/sumerian-problem.html[/url]

What sort of questions are this?
I can remember asking you if you knew about history?, you clearly just absorb misinformation from christian apologetic sites.

DoctorAlien:


Prove this.

Thutmoses II died leaving his infant son Thutmose III who ruled along side with his Aunt Hatshepsut until her death, then he continued on his inherited throne till he died in around 1425BC.
Please just do yourself a favor and read about the history of Thutmose III or look it up on wikipedia

The link you posted obviously lied to defend their point.
I know you can't imagine this because it's a christian site, but read up thutmose history to see for yourself.

DoctorAlien:
4kings,

How did you conclude that humans started writing about 3100 B.C? Can you prove that man did not write before 3100 B.C.?

Please educate yourself with this link--> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_writing

The issue of proving whether man did not write before 3100BC will definitely not be in your favour. You better remember the dating of Adam and Eve's Creation before asking nonsense questions.

How were you able to pin the date of the event contained in the epic of gilgamesh? How are you sure that the epic of gilgamesh actually happened?

If you've finished reading the link, then you should know that civilisation continued to grow in the mesopotamia and China up until now, without any record of world disaster.
According to biblical dating Noah and the flood supposedly occurred during 3000BC, this is clearly not possible. If you can't figure this out, then you should start addressing your own comprehension level.

On the issue of pinning the date of epic of gilgamesh, i never did, i made a logical deduction that if according to history, we know(starting from the time the sumerians conceived writing) that the sumerians were around during 3000BC then the flood or flood story must have been years before that.

Where is the proof of your claim that the Bible plagiarized the epic of gilgamesh?

I think you should have figured this out now.
The biblical flood happened 3000BC, the sumerians were much alive during this period(again this was when the earliest form of writing is believed to have been conceived).
Therefore, a literal biblical flood during this period is not possible but a BIG LIE.

Also note that the book of genesis was written around 1440-1400BC, so it shows that whoever wrote that book was never inspired by a supreme being as the datings there are just impossible.
So you should start questioning your so-called patriarchs existence now.

What do you have to say about the fact that the oldest fragments of stones containing the epic of gilgamesh are date only about 2000 B.C.?

Ya, this historical piece is dated to be about 2100BC so. It's possibly one of the stones were this stories were written, and possibly the only surviving one.
The book of Genesis to Deuteronomy is dated to be around 1440-1400BC
Why did you bring this up?
Are you trying to prove yourself wrong?

DoctorAlien:
4kings, don't let me conclude that you're in the same category with akintom when it comes to comprehension.

First, Moses put down the account of Creation, and all the other events that occurred up until his time in writing. Before he did this, Patriarchs like Adam, Seth, Enoch, etc. have been passing these stories down orally. It is also not improbable that these Patriarchs may have put these events down in writing, but the writings were all lost.

It is not a thing of surprise if the pagan Sumerians hear this story from these Patriarchs(as they were spreading the knowledge of the true GOD), and then twist it with their own fables and put it down in writing.

Either moses was writing about a timeline in another dimension or he was clearly writing a false story.

I've told you already why the biblical flood could not have happened if we were to follow biblical and historical dating.
If this biblical flood is false, then this your patriarchs existence is also questionable.

I've been trying to point this out to you, but you still don't get it(i hope you do now).

DoctorAlien:
4kings, below is a piece I found on the Ubaid civilization.

[url]watchmeasidream..com/2012/03/sumerian-problem.html[/url]

The link talks about the tower of babel, smh.
Check the history of the ubaid and the dating of the tower of babel according to the bible.
I hope this your level of comprehension, will make you realize that you've been lied to.

Well, this is heading nowhere. With [url=ancientegyptia.tripod.com/id11.html]different opinions on the biography of Tutmoses III,[/url] I guess anyone can find whatever suits what he/she wants to believe. Moreover, what can you do if one refuses to accept the possibility of the fact that the Patriarchs walked this earth?

4kings, your conclusion that the flood in the epic of gilgamesh happened years before 3000 B.C. is illogical given the fact that the oldest copy of the epic is dated only about 2000 B.C. Or are you going to make the daring claim that the Sumerians recorded the epic the same day they "invented" writing?

Another perspective: God as the system..
Alot of people this days don't even know who or what God is, but I don't think is any of their fault because nobody actually seems to know who or what God is. I believe in a statement that says even if there is spirituality or supernatural forces in life they cannot be explained just by tapping into the supernatural force. This is because the man is a natural being.
Man is a natural being not because everything he sees or cab explain is natural, just like it is natural for man to exist. There is nothing supernatural about man him self even though he has spirit and soul that can not be seen of touch but it is natural for every man to have that. So events that can be explained or occurs by the influence of man is said to be natural.
Things that can not be explained and not man influenced are said to be supernatural that is, more than the natural things that occurs.
Man has to define things beyond his reasoning as supernatural... so the force behind such force is said to be God. the so called supernatural cannot be supernatural if it is not relative to the natural. God cannot be God if not relative to humans or less powerful bodies. Assuming God has a mate of equal power will he be called God by such mate?, No he can't, will rather be called a friend or an enemy, obviously because he can't be under God's control.
When we ask the question that goes thus: what controls the natural state mi of existence, the most likely to be an appropriate answer is the supernatural. Now if we go further by questioning the supernatural i.e. what exactly controls the supernatural we have no other answer apart from God. Now this justifies the fact that God is the supreme over both the natural and even the supernatural, but have you questioned who or what exactly God is, is he a being or a thing that controls everything.
I have an opinion which says God is a system that comprises of everything living and non-living, imaginable and unimaginable as it's subsets. This definition of God as a system sees everything as part of God I.e. everyone is an aspect or a part of God. This is justified by the general believe that God knows everything, moreover how won't he know everything since everything is he, so anything that happens to anything happens to God so he has to be aware of it.
Author: Diya Ayobami

diybay,

What would you call this view of yours?

According to your philosophy:

1. Is GOD alive or non-living? Is he/it intelligent?

2. Which is true: no universe without GOD or no GOD without universe?

3. Does GOD change with time?

4. Did GOD create life? How?

DoctorAlien:
diybay,

What would you call this view of yours?

According to your philosophy:

1. Is GOD alive or non-living? Is he/it intelligent?

2. Which is true: no universe without GOD or no GOD without universe?

3. Does GOD change with time?

4. Did GOD create life? How?

Living or not, depends on what u define as beign living. If u want me to say whether it breaths or has life then I will say it is both living and nonliving. This it's dual nature makes it possible for animals and plant to be a fraction of it and also making it possible for lifeless things to be another segment of it.

It should be noted that according to my philosophy God is neither a being nor a personified creature, it is a system.
If God is only a living system then all creatures will have life, ur tables, books e.t.c will possess life, and if it's totally non-living then you and I will be lifeless.


Universe is quite a small fragment of God, but there is no God without universe and likewise no universe without God. If the universe is removed from God then what we have is less than God, and also, the universe is a subset that can't stand alone..(scientifically there are rumors that we have other universe), so all these universes are part of what make God, God.


God is not answerable to time, every bit of time is within him. Time is just a reference tool for us humans... Do u think non living creatures makes use of time?, no, we only help them use time. So time is a component of God for our sake, in other words God doesn't change with time.


Creation of life? Nah... Nothing created nothing, life exists within God.


What I will call this view of mine... I really don't know... Seems u guys will help me...

diybay

Who brought the universe into existence? Bear in mind that the Cause must necessarily precede, exist without, and be able to totally able to bring into existence, its effect.

The universe is the sum total of all that exists minus its Cause. If the universe is a fraction of GOD, then you contradict yourself when you claim that GOD is the totality of all that exists.

Moreover, your version of GOD is by no means constant. What if a nuclear bomb wipes out every trace of life on this planet? Is your "GOD" still the same?

DoctorAlien:
diybay

Who brought the universe into existence? Bear in mind that the Cause must necessarily precede, exist without, and be able to totally able to bring into existence, its effect.

The universe is the sum total of all that exists minus its Cause. If the universe is a fraction of GOD, then you contradict yourself when you claim that GOD is the totality of all that exists.

Moreover, your version of GOD is by no means constant. What if a nuclear bomb wipes out every trace of life on this planet? Is your "GOD" still the same?

God undergoes a constant rate of disintegration and integration which gives the system a complete cycle. From the disintegration from the whole system comes existence of things you know which the universe is part of. Things u don't know like where infinity is' is a part of God as a system that is yet to be disintegrated most likely it won't be. And from the integration comes the destruction to make back the wholistic God

The universe is the sum total of all that physically or realistically exist within our range of knowledge. Other universe that exists is the physical existence of Reality of other life forms within their own scope of knowledge.


God is constant.... If nuclear bomb kills every life form on earth. The nuclear bomb(death) is an agent of separation in order for different segment of God that fused together to form the living creature finds their way back to their faction in the wholistic God.
God is a system of everything that ensures that nothing can exist outside it. It makes sure that nothing is lost nor can be gained.


Note; According to my philosophy I believe that humans are as a result of the fussing together of different factions of God were disintegrating...

DoctorAlien:
Well, this is heading nowhere. With [url=ancientegyptia.tripod.com/id11.html]different opinions on the biography of Tutmoses III,[/url] I guess anyone can find whatever suits what he/she wants to believe.

There is no shift in opinion in the link you posted.
Read it carefully, it talks about Thutmoses ruling along side his aunt for 22 years and then 32 years by himself.
Which makes it a total of 54 years of reign.
Issues about his age was not mentioned in the link you posted. Check it carefully, again.

Moreover, what can you do if one refuses to accept the possibility of the fact that the Patriarchs walked this earth?

'refuses to accept' really?
you're funny ooo, i have given you facts on the existence of sumerians and Noah, in the same timeline.
If we're to go according to biblical stories then the sumerians were not supposed to exist, instead of addressing this logically, you're just simply going to say "i'm refusing to accept" the existence of your patriach.

You better wake up.
Anyways some christians don't take the flood and creation story to be literal, this very point could have bailed you out.

4kings, your conclusion that the flood in the epic of gilgamesh happened years before 3000 B.C. is illogical given the fact that the oldest copy of the epic is dated only about 2000 B.C. Or are you going to make the daring claim that the Sumerians recorded the epic the same day they "invented" writing?

Now lets get one thing clear.
I don't believe in fairy tales.
Do you really think i believe such a worldwide flood took place because of some gods.
My debate here with you is that the existence and belief of this flood story was, before the person that wrote the books of genesis - Deuteronomy, and the person(maybe moses) possibly plagiarized it or maybe he never meant it literally.

Now on the issue you raised:
It seems you don't bother to read my post completely. This is what i said before:

On the issue of pinning the date of epic of gilgamesh, i never did, i made a logical deduction that if according to history, we know(starting from the time the sumerians conceived writing) that the sumerians were around during 3000BC then the flood or flood story must have been years before that.

I hope you get me now...

4kings:

There is no shift in opinion in the link you posted.
Read it carefully, it talks about Thutmoses ruling along side his aunt for 22 years and then 32 years by himself.
Which makes it a total of 54 years of reign.
Issues about his age was not mentioned in the link you posted. Check it carefully, again.

The site gives a different date of death for Tutmoses III from what is found on wikipedia. And that site actually gave the correct date.

Moreover, the site says Tutmoses III was born in 1530 BC. This means that he was at least 80 years old at death, and that he began to rule(as a coregent) at the age of 26, contrary to your claim that he was an infant when he began to rule.

I simply wanted you to see how illogical your claim that the epic of gilgamesh was written "years before 3000 BC" is, given that the oldest copy of the epic is dated only about 2000 BC. You cannot prove that the sumerians recorded the epic around 3000 BC. If you don't get it by now, ugh!

DoctorAlien:


The site gives a different date of death for Tutmoses III from what is found on wikipedia. And that site actually gave the correct date.[

Moreover, the site says Tutmoses III was born in 1530 BC. This means that he was at least 80 years old at death, and that he began to rule(as a coregent) at the age of 26, contrary to your claim that he was an infant when he began to rule.

Ya, true. My bad.
I quickly scanned that link and didn't notice the first line. I had to check again.

But however, i have never read about Tutmoses III being 80 years old, that's why i was very shocked.
His dad Tutmoses II died at a young age that's why the throne was handed to him as an infant.
Even wikipedia and history.com does not support this "80-year old" claim.
I don't know how that link you posted, came up with that date.(if you have more details on this, do share).

I simply wanted you to see how illogical your claim that the epic of gilgamesh was written "years before 3000 BC" is, given that the oldest copy of the epic is dated only about 2000 BC. You cannot prove that the sumerians recorded the epic around 3000 BC. If you don't get it by now, ugh!

Oh, i get you now. I started with 3000BC mainly to attack your patriarch's existence and also at the same time to state that the story has been even before that time.

Now to back up this point, since the only written historical piece of this story is dated around 2000BC:
- The poems of gilgamesh, is centered around a king called gilgamesh or bilgamesh.
According to historians Gilgamesh ruled the city of Uruk during 2700BC.

In the story Gilgamesh met an old man called Utnapishtim. In summary, Utnapishtim told him that his family were the only survivors of the great flood sent by the gods.

From the story, Utnapishtim was obviuosly talking about a time in the past.
This time is not certain. Gilgamesh ruled during 2700BC and like i pointed out, there was a form of civilization during 3100BC.
Therefore this myth, must have been in existence years before 2700BC or 3000BC.
Some historians dates this to around 5000BC, using the history of Uruk
The flood myth also appears in two other sumerians poems and in other ancient cities around Mesopotamia.

I hope you are served now.

---

By the way, this might not bring out anything surprising, but i'm still curious to know, if you still really think the Biblical flood story literally happened, after the discussion we've had?

4kings,

Historians see Gilgamesh as a historical figure "because inscriptions have been seen which confirm the existence of other characters associated with him in the epic." Moreover, if Gilgamesh existed at all, the period of his rule is known with only as much certainty as can be ascribed to the word "probably".

Yes. I firmly believe that the flood happened as the Bible narrated it.

DoctorAlien:
4kings,

Historians see Gilgamesh as a historical figure "because inscriptions have been seen which confirm the existence of other characters associated with him in the epic."

Ya, but we can't say the same for bible characters that allegedly existed during this period.

Moreover, if Gilgamesh existed at all, the period of his rule is known with only as much certainty as can be ascribed to the word "probably".

The story is not only in the epic of gilgamesh but is in two other sumerians poems and existed around the cities of mesopotamia.
My argument with you is that the bible possibly plagiarised the story, because the story existed long before the time when Genesis - Deuteronomy was written or when Noah's existence was dated according to the bible.

I've told you before that i don't believe in the literal flood story, i have read some stories from sumerian history, i don't take everything to be true. I repeat again, My argument comes from the fact that people believed stories that has great similarities with those in the bible before the bible was written, so it was possibly plagiarized or meant as a metaphor.

Yes. I firmly believe that the flood happened as the Bible narrated it.

So what would you say about those that existed according to history during this time the flood is alleged to have happened?

Jesus is Lord! ...see how this church cell group put His Word to work resulting in a record breaking win at the just concluded Pumpkin Festival in South Africa.

https://www.nairaland.com/3712646/record-breaking-pumpkin-south-africa

The Bible itself has received a lot of critics by people. Well It's normal to criticise, Sometimes we agree to disagree but my question still remains why are this people not criticising the Holy Quran if you really want to criticise the existence of a superior being ? The Muslims also believe in God.
Why is there much to the Bible and rather none to the Quran.