Two questions that strike my curiosity.

If Adam and Eve are the makers of humanity...and people are all trying to back-date scientific evidence that they are the propietors of people, but a flood wiped out everyone except Noah and his passengers sometime between 3,000BCE and 2,000BCE...then wouldn't there be tracable evidence to backdate only a few thousand years to prove we are all connected over such a small amount of time? I mean, Noah and the passengers were to re-populate the Earth right? So all of our genes would be genetic matches to these people 4-5 thousand years ago when it all started it over right?

Also, I find it very remarkable that less than 10 people grew into 7 billion in 4-5 thousand years. You'd be looking at an average rate of 1.4 million people per year. Is that really possible?

Why are we trying to prove we came from Adam and Eve when the question should be, did we all come from this limited number of people 4-5 thousand years ago. I think if we figured this part out, it would be easier to unravel the mystery of Adam and Eve wouldn't it?

I think that is a question that is often overlooked. I have also heard theories that other groups of people survived the great flood as well.

I have wondered myself how two people could lead to million; but they have said they can trace all dna to just two people and that we are all related? i guess it depends on what you believe

I've wondered the same thing.

I could very well be wrong, but I think I remember reading in the bible how Noah lived to be a couple of hundred years old. Anyone heard anything like that?

Yes i have heard that too; he was suppose to have a large family,alot of the people in the bible lived into there hundreds,

Ehmm Firefemme. I hate to be the one breaking this to you....But....Those things never happened

It's really a tough question because Christianity, which I am somewhat familiar with, has many explanations. Some Christians believe the world is only 6,000 years old and dinosours never existed. Some believe the flood covered the entire world and the ark held two of everything. I think that's nonsense. God made fossels of things that never existed and Noah built a boat the size of South Carolina. When you put it like that it sounds really, really stupid.

I believe in God. The fossel record does not support the theory of gradualism/evolution. Instead it shows increasing complex life forms appearing, almost as if they were created.

Adam and Eve. Maybe the two that God chose to teach how to live in these bodies on the earth. Noah and Flood. A local event somewhere near early civilizations. India, Iraq, Egypt? That would be my guess.

I believe the best science ties everyone back to a single woman in north central Africa. The first wave out followed the coast east and spread all the way to Australia. The second wave went into central Asia and spread east and west.

The populating of the Americas is pretty interesting. There is evidence that suggests there may have been two waives. The first coming from France during the ice age following the ice pack across. The second coming from north and central Asia as the ice was retreating. Some theororize another group came island hopping across the pacific.

Here's something worth while. "Put everything to the test, hold to that which is true."

No, not unless women were being caged up like battery hens and injected them every nine months. These things are not possible and therefore did not happen.



You cannot unravel something that was conjured up by authors.

Adam and Eve is a myth. Just like Prometheus was a myth. Every culture has a creation story. Through circumstance, the Jewish one happens to be the one that survived.

The nature of myth is that it grows from real events and then takes on a life of its own. Creation myths grow from the cultural values of the people. Noah's Ark, and a great flood, grew from probably a real event as well.

The Ark, if built, obviously could not have held every species alive. But it could have held a lot perhaps. I believe there is flood evidence, dating back to Babylonian or Sumerian times. Judiasm came about during Babylonian times, but Ark myth could have been based on something that happened even earlier. I'm just speculating, but it makes sense.

They say everyone spread from Noah's family, but that sounds like something that would just be put into a myth. Let's say the Ark did sail for 40 days and there was a big flood. That flood happened during a time when people were already settling in Yantze and Yellow river valleys in China to say the least. So right away there's one group of people that are removed from the flood in the middle east.

"They say everyone spread from Noah's family ..."

Who is this they? Change they to some and you'd be accurate.

I challenge you to cite or link to some statements by any real scientists (and no, I don't mean a scholar of creation "science", for obvious reasons) to back up this claim.



Last I heard, there were some studies that showed it was far more likely that humans first evolved in a group of approximately two thousand. I have this article lying somewhere in an enormous pile of magazines in my basement, and will cite when I manage to uncover it (I'm almost positive it was in Discover, sometime within the past year or two).

As for the tale of Noah's ark in general, I tend to see it for what it actually is: a myth drawn from the nearly identical, and exceedingly more ancient, story of Zisudra in Sumer (the Sumerian civilization was contemporary in southern Mesopotamia with Semitic tribes; I may be thinking of something else, but I believe that the Sumerians and Semites were also ethnically identical, and differed only in language and culture).

Different flood stories with eerie and unexplained similarities to that of Noah in Hebrew mythology are found in hundreds of civilizations on every settled continent (and many Pacific islands as well). This general story is found in hundreds of separate religions whose architects (one assumes) had no contact with each other: god(s) are upset with humans / god(s) decide to wipe out humans with a global flood that reaches to the highest mountain peaks / one god warns a good human (occasionally accompanied by a few other humans who are awarded less importance in the story) and tells him to build a boat (this part often includes the "two of every animal" part, or the "gather all seeds" part of the Manu flood story) to survive the flood / human(s) survives after a lengthy deluge and somehow repopulates the world.

To be sure, the fact that so many of these stories are so inexplicably similar should arouse investigation. But the answer does not lie in taking one of these story (the Hebrew account, for argument's sake) as the true account, and all other as mere deviants. Even at that, putting faith in the Jewish account seems silly, considering it doesn't come close to being the most ancient of these, and was in all probability taken directly from the Sumerian version of the story.

And many of the details shared by these flood myths simply did not happen. The repopulation problem, for one thing (some of the stories even claim that no females survived the disaster). And, in the time that human beings have occupied the earth, there has NEVER been a flood of the scale described in Genesis or its counterpart myths. No doubt, we've endured some rather nasty ones, but nothing that inundated mountain tops.

You think I'm stupid? I'm not about to attempt to prove a negative and, why don't you produce the missing link?

In my flood version there is no reason to repopulate the earth because it is a local event. My version doesn't exclude local flooding elsewhere either. Since Humans tended to settle along the banks of rivers, one should expect floods. Or maybe that doesn't make sense.

Ehmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

can i see something that would completely rule this out?

Where did you go? Are you looking for the missing link?

My theory is that you will never find one.

Ball's in your court.

I'll help you out. Swinging in trees, dragging knuckles, walking upright.

Ready, Set, Go!

That's actually true.

Although it also means the fossil records shows that creation happened thousands of times over the past 4.5 billion years...... Species appear, slowly change (micro evolution) and diversify. And then become extinct. And then new species appear. And so on. Time and time again.


As for Noah's Flood. Here's the latest theory

I know it's true, it's why I typed it.

Thousands of creation events over 4.5 billion years? So how much oil does that leave?

2 of every animal on the planet would take a boat the size of a large european country nearly, and being able to gather all the animals around the globe? plus the fact if the ocean reached the highest mountain then what did they use for oxygen to survive?

Firefemme, I'd like to point out a slight flaw in your reasoning here. You're assuming a linear growth rate, when in fact the population grows exponentially. Though there are some variables to the equation (war, famine, disease, natural disasters, etc.), it's possible for the population to double every two to four generations (40 - 80 years). Even at an exponential growth rate of only 1% per year the population would double in 70 years. It's easy to see how a small population could grow into the billions in the time given.

well, everything isn't like it is now, maybe god made then able to have like 10 kids at once.

Hey welcome back fallingalien. Long-time-no-see.

You mean like a litter?

The Real Noah's Ark!
Top Points to Consider

1. It is in the shape of a boat, with a pointed bow and rounded stern.

2. Exact length as noted in biblical description, 515 feet or 300 Egyptian cubits. (Egyptian not Hebrew cubit would have been known to Moses who studied in Egypt then wrote Genesis.)

3. It is on a mountain in Eastern Turkey, as stated in the Bible, "The ark rested . . . upon the mountains of Ararat" Genesis 8:4. (Ararat being the name of the ancient country Urartu which covered this region.)

4. Contains petrified wood, as proven by lab analysis.

5. Contains high-tech metal alloy fittings, as proven by separate lab analyses paid for by Ron Wyatt, then later Kevin Fisher of this web site. Aluminum was found in the fittings which is a MAN-MADE metal!

6. Vertical rib timbers on its sides, comprising the skeletal superstructure of a boat. Regular patterns of horizontal and vertical deck support beams are also seen on the surface of the ark.

7. Occupied ancient village at the ark site at 6,500 ft. elevation matching Flavius Josephus' statement "Its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day."

8. Dr. Bill Shea found an ancient pottery sherd within a few yards of the ark which has a carving on it that depicts a bird, a fish, and a man with a hammer wearing a headdress that has the name "Noah" on it. In ancient times these items were created by the locals in the village to sell to visitors of the ark. The ark was a tourist attraction in ancient times and today.

9. Recognized by Turkish Government as Noah's Ark National Park and a National Treasure. Official notice of its discovery appeared in the largest Turkish newspaper.

10. Visitors' center built by the government to accommodate tourists further confirms its authenticity.

11. Huge anchor stones were found near the ark and in a village, Kazan, 15 miles away, which hung off the rear of the ark to steady its ride.

12. The ark rests upon Cesnakidag (or Cudi Dagi) Mountain, which is translated as "Doomsday" Mountain.

13. Dr. Salih Bayraktutan of Ataturk University stated, "It is a man made structure, and for sure it's Noah's Ark" Common Sense. This same article also states "The site is immediately below the mountain of Al Judi, named in the Qur'an as the resting place of the Ark." Houd Sura 11:44

14. Radar scans show a regular pattern of timbers inside the ark formation, revealing keels, keelsons, gunnels, bulkheads, animal chambers, ramp system, door in right front, two large barrels in front 14 x 24', and an open center area for air flow to all three levels.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm

Conspiracy, I believe you are assuming that two of every animal today were on the ark. There are hundreds of breeds of dogs, all of which come from one single breed, which over time as dogs spread out and were introduced to new climates, they began to adapt to suit these climates. Over a short period of time a dog in a colder climate would be different from a dog in a warmer climate. Somewhere along the line they would meet and breed and a different kind of dog would pop up, and soon you have many different kinds of dogs, like today.

The same goes for all animals, I believe that the animal kingdom was much, much simpler when God first created it in Eden.

Now you may be wondering how penguins from the arctic ended up on an ark in Iraq. Well, I believe back then that all the continents were together. I believe there is a name for it now...Pangea. So when called by God, the penguins would just waddle overland to reach the ark.

If they had to at all. I believe all birds came from a single kind. And like the dog, adapted and changed according to their environment and thus, we have all these different kinds of birds today. Some cannot fly, like the Ostrich, while others soar with the jets, like eagles.

Remember most of this is my opinion and beliefs, however I believe there is scientific evidence that backs it up.


I think that's called a moonpool.

Bzzt! Wrong.

Aluminum is a naturally occuring metal. It is number 13 on the periodic table. You can't "make" metal anymore than you can "make" oxygen.

Alloys, on the other hand, are man made.




Pangea predates the extinction of the dinosaurs, not to mention the first humans.
http://pangaea.org/continen.htm

A more realistic explanation would be that whoever wrote Genesis (Moses?) merely said it was all the animals because:

A) It was all the animals in the area

B ) An even older myth said it was all the animals for the reason above, and he was just copying that.

1) First of all not every animal came. Fish didnt go in the boat.
2) You must be unfamiliar with the size of the boat.

I guess God would be able to flood the entire earth, yet not be able to provide enough oxygen for Noah and the animals.

I just watched the doc on Noah's Ark, it was in the the travel channel, i will not repeat the whole show; but it was really good and explain how the animals were brought on the ark, and long it took to build,they run the same doc on discovery channel alot , it is worth the time to watch it if you have questions.

Thank you. That was my point precious. By disproving one event in the Bible, it unravels the entire thing. Scientist believe the flood was local and most likely where the Dead Sea is now. But the Bible states that this flood covered the entire world. Well, why would the Bible mis-interpret such a small area of the world as the entire world if His all-knowing son is the author (or whoever wrote it was at least speaking for Him)?


If you had noticed, I knew this and put the word "average" growth rate in my statement. That didn't mean that's how many popped out the first year and our present year, just an AVERAGE.

Obviously it didn't reach the highest mountain. Mt. Ararat in Turkey is hardly Everest. It is pretty damn high though.

Your arguement is sound though. A flood that high would have to be that high everywhere on the planet, and after the water receded back down (which probably took as long or longer than 40 days, on top of the first 40) it would take ages for plants to start growing again for more oxygen to be produced. So basically, we're looking at around a year or so of no plant life. That's pretty much nuclear winter.

This webpage is interesting reading:
http://www.allaboutturkey.com/ararat.htm

Aslo, Mt. Ararat is higher than every mountain in the US except Mt. McKinley and every mountain in Europe except the Caucasus. To flood even up to it's middle would be impossible. I don't think there's that much water on the planet. I'm pretty sure I heard that even if you melt the ice caps, sea level only goes up about 500 feet.

As the webpage says, the story of the Ark is based off something in Gilgamesh, which is based off a large Euphrades River flood that washed up the Ark on the slopes of a mountain, not high up on it.




You assume God exists.

Not to open a can of worms about that here, but you can't bring God in as a solution to an arguement. His existence is a matter of faith. You can't settle a debate by asking someone to believe in something as a solution.

We're trying to settle the issue of whether or not Noah's Ark as told in the Bible was a myth based on real but lesser events, or whether it's true as told literally. Belief is circular logic. It doesn't solve anything.


If one wants to assume God stepped in and solved all those technical problems, fine. Maybe He did. Who knows for sure? But that's not an explanation, and certainly not evidence. It's a question of faith alone.

Thank you.

A point brought up in an earlier post was that some Bible-believers think that dinosaurs were not real and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. And yet there are fossils of dinosaurs. Now, in my book, that is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." I mean, if you don't believe what's right in front of your eyes that's all over the world, and yet there's NO proof that a world-wide catastrophic flood happened, then why are we placing so much faith in a book that has a King's name on it half the time?

Think about this, if Noah's Ark WAS real, and it was a world-wide catastrophe, then he would have to have brought on board EVERY SINGLE SPECIES that we have today in our present world. Because creationism is the path of those who follow God right? Therefore no animals evolve into anything else, and nor do humans. So if nothing evolves, Noah MUST have brought all the species we have today on the board, there's no other way we would have all these species on our planet that we do.

If that isn't proof enough that no world-wide flood occurred, then that's basically saying the Bible doesn't tell the truth. Now, why are people following something and basing their lives on something that isn't true?

How can you say this when you dont know what the truth is?

Ahh...

I see your logical way of thinking.

Disproving one event doesn't mean the entire thing is crap. And nothing was "dis-proven" in the first place.

Firefemme,

Please. Our population has soared into the billions over a few hundred years. Everything starts somewhere, and a single male and single female and create an entire species, and over time, in the billions.

Secondly, I don't know WHO you hang around with but I don't know a single Creationist which denys the extistence of dinosaurs. Of course dinosaurs existed. Dnosaurs were NOT an originally created animal, and were, according to non-canonical texts, the reason for the asteroid hits in the ocean/tsunamis/global climate change/flood/ice age, in that very order. If you have any question about the setting off of this event rest ssured that the evidence of an asteroid hitting the OCEAN dates back to the late Cretaceous Period. The majority of dinosaur fossils both articulated and had their death as a result of FLOODING.

Thirdly, there are more species around now than a few thousand years ago. Just look at dog breeds. This is MICRO EVOLUTION not MACRO EVOLUTION. Serious creationist scientists accept micro evolution. On top of that, 6000 years is a misunderstanding. In non-canonical books it clearly states that the Earth as created in 7000 YEARS each day of Heaven (in space, space IS Heaven) equalling 1000 Earth years. If you have a problem equating that perhaps your should look up the difference in distance according to lightyears and Earth years.

I also don't suppose you are aware that there are 72 separate accounts of this global flood outside of the biblical account, and I don't think that eve includes the recently found Arab text found near the pyramids at Giza.

And you do?

You should read my post above. I have logically discredited the story of the Ark as it was told in the Bible.

Ball's in your court.




What do you mean? A light year is a unit of distance and an "earth year" is a unit of time. What do you mean the different in distance between the two?

If you are saying a single man and single female can create a race of billions, I doubt it. (I think that is what you are saying).

The reasons being inbreeding and weak genes.

Of course it caan. Forst of all the original male and female were not related. Beyond that, interbreeding IS possible, how the hell do you think new breeds are made?

As for the lightyear question, what about don't you understand? Heaven being in space literally has a different timing system. Lightyears.

ashley. a LIGHTYEAR is a distance.

it is the DISTANCE that LIGHT can travel in a YEAR. hence LIGHTYEAR.

here are some links about inbreeding
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4204789.stm
http://www.panther.state.fl.us/handbook/th...reedthreat.html


"Inbreeding jeopardizes the survival of the population in a number of ways. All living things inherit characteristics from their ancestors. These characteristics are inherited through genes. Inbred populations are less variable genetically than other populations. This means that individuals in the population are more alike. Less variability means that a population may be less able to adapt to environmental change or to survive a particular disease. Biologists refer to the ability to adapt as fitness. Inbreeding makes a population of animals less fit.

Being more alike also means that individuals in small populations are more likely to share the same recessive genes and to pass these on to their offspring. Traits that are recessive only occur if the individual receives a recessive gene from both parents. Some recessive traits are harmless and don't affect the health of the individual. It appears that the kinked tail among the Florida panthers, a harmless trait, is recessive and that the high incidence of this trait is the result of inbreeding over the generations of a small isolated population. "




i can see it now.... <has a vision of the future>"adam and eve had no recessive genes so it was possible to inbreed"

wrong. dont forget gene mutation. have 2 kids , one of wuch has a recessive gene for cystic fybrosis. they breed. now there is a ,, if i remember correctly, a 2 in 4 chance that the offspring will have the recessive gene. if they had 4 kids, then statistically, 2 of them have the recessive gene. if by chance, they breed. then there i think its right that there is a 1 in 4 chance that the offspring will have cystic fybrosis, 2 in 4 chance they will have a recessive gene, 1 in 4 chance they will not.

i will research this. as it has been a while since i did anything about genes.


http://library.thinkquest.org/19037/heredity.html



added link to gene heredity and Punnett Square

We can believe it never happened because we have no proof only logic and theory. We can be traced to single DNA suppilers (Adam and Eve) for namessake. That makes sense after all we had to have orignal parents! That only supports (not prove) Biblical story. Flood now it is very possible others (besides Noah and his family) surivied flood so its possilbe (no proof) that this could have lead to millions in a few thusand years. Keep in mind there was no birth control so famlies could be quite large! Now Bible was written by men and Men have faults whihc include stretching the truth! We can accpet the Bible and its tales however I would suggest that many of the tales are very over exargerated and to take them literally would be a mistake. The Bible gives us lessons and the stories are the lessons. The truth lies somewhere in the middle between fact and fiction. thats my take

I know how you reached your average of 1.4 million per year and it is still linear thinking (sorry, I'm just being picky). However, I understand the point of your discussion and I agree with you.

Go back and read her quote, she is the one who claimed she knew the truth to begin with.

I simply asked her how can she know what the truth is, and you ask me like I implied that I did . You must have trouble understanding my points.

I'm not claiming to know the truth, only my opinion of the truth based on scientific "lack" of evidence that there was a worldwide flood only a few thousand years ago. Yet the Bible states there was a worldwide flood. That is what my opinion is based on.


Now why on Earth would God put his name to a book if only to put fictitious tales in it? I'm not saying it was definitely disproven and therefore the "entire thing is crap." I'm just curious as to why people are trying to find the genes that link us to Adam and Eve when scientists should look to linking us to the few people on Noah's Ark if it's considered fact by people who follow the Bible, and yet, scientists can't even link us to these people a few thousand years ago because, in my opinion, the story isn't real. Since the story isn't real then why do people still believe in Adam and Eve if Noah's Ark can't even be proven and it's a heck of a lot more recent than Adam and Eve?


I think a few of us are having problems understanding your points. I didn't claim to know the truth (there's no factual evidence, and only a God would know the exact truth without evidence). Goodness, if I thought I was God I certainly wouldn't be free to walk the streets now would I? Again, this is all my opinion.

I don't want this to be some breakout God vs Atheism, creationism vs evolution thread. Like I said in my original post, I am merely curious as to why this isn't a bigger discussion. I've never heard this point brought up before. I see all these documentaries and shows on "tracing our genes back to one man and one woman." But why? Why are we trying to trace our genes back to ADAM AND EVE, a story told in the Bible, when there is another EASIER story to trace genes back to if the Bible is fact. Noah's Ark happened long after Adam and Eve. And it left the world, supposedly, with less than 10 people. Now, if I was a scientist and was trying to prove the world started with such a small number of people, I wouldn't try doing it by Adam and Eve, I would try doing it with Noah's Ark story first. But why do scientists skip that easier proven theory? It's because they know, just as everyone else, that they can't prove it. So they try for something they won't reach in their lifetime, which is proving everything came from one man and one woman thousands of years ago. That's my OPINION (for all those who are going to claim that I'm talking like this is a fact.)

For a debate that is still going on about the FACT of how the dinosaur era came to end, you sure do talk like what you said is the fact. Not that I don't agree with you, I mean it is the reigning theory, but it's not the only one, and it has yet to actually be proven without a reasonable doubt. Just pointing out what you did to me earlier, no offense.

And, to reply to your statement of "i don't know who you hang around with" line, but like I said in my post that you are referring to, I was repeating an earlier statement in the thread made by someone else that I just didn't quote. Please read an entire post before getting defensive (or rude). Thanks.

'Reigning theory?' Gee I must be good then lol

No, I doubt you'll get that, just a personal joke...

Anyway, technically there was another line of humans around during the era of 'Adam and Eve'. Lilith was his first wife, Eve his second. But, that's still 'inbreeding'to a point. And even with all the problems inbreeding COULD cause, it does not always.

Tracing everything back to Noah shouldn't be that hard. Noah himself was part Ethiopian (Enoch, his grandfather was Ethiopian) and Hebrew, obviously. His daughter in laws could have been any number of nationalities.

FreyKayde,

Lightyears are distance, I already said that, but surely you know that time works different within space? 1000 light year difference from Earth equalling a day is talking about the distance itself. Furethermost edge of the entire universe.

I get it

Exactly, that's what makes me curious. Why don't scientists focus more on dating us back to Noah and his passengers other than going back even further to link us to Adam and Eve?

Well, dating it back to Adam and Eve shows the genes came from th same lines. Dating it back to Noah is also of interest, and something that probably should be done as it shows how all races came from one, and that at that time even then a diversity was present.

Really, we are all one, and racism is unecessary.

Going back to Noah maybe wrong. If I recall teh flood story correctly there is no mention that ALL men were wiped out.

Now there is something I will say AMEN to

Below is the actual Biblical scriptures from the book of Genesis:

6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

9 This is the account of Noah.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Yes but were all men (other than thjos eon Ark) killed? There is no thing in bible ( I think) that states that

I can't believe there are grownups out there who take the Bible literally. Allegory and analogy do not make the Bible any less "true" for the thoughtfully faithful. The clarion calls for evolution abolition are not coming from Notre Dame or Holy Cross, they're coming from a bunch snake-handling hayseeds in Kansas! Sheesh!
If you can get a fellow to believe the story of Noah's Ark is the literal truth word-for-word, you can get him to believe right-wing fundamentalists are sane enought to run the country, and that's an even bigger stretch than Noah stuffing two of every critter on one little boat!


I am not bashing Christianity, don't get me wrong. I am saying there's a certain pathology of child-like thinking among certain American Evangelicals and they are being politically exploited by way of blind faith!

What you mean that when God stated in the bible that he WOULD kill all mankind

"I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them"

and then he said

" am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth"

what he actually meant was

"I will wipe pretend to wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am joking about being grieved that I have made them"

and

"" I am not really going to put an end to all people, for the earth isn't really filled with violence because of them. I am surely not going to destroy both them and the earth"

Halleyuyah Praise the Lord.
Damn Moses for Bad reporting. anyone would think he had an ulterior motive