So, Oral Traditions Can Preserve Eye-Witness Accounts After All

Nunn then turned his attention to the work of the early twentieth century French ethnographer Arnold van Gennep, who spent considerable time learning the traditions of Australian Aborigines. Of particular interest was the Aborigines’ account of how Lake Eacham, a maar (a shallow volcanic feature filled with water to form a lake) in Queensland, formed. The details of the story match the thinking of modern geologists to suggest that the myth is actually a well-preserved eyewitness account. But the conventional date of formation, 9,000 years ago, is even more astonishing than the match of the Klamath story with modern geology. Furthermore, there are many widespread aboriginal accounts of coastal submergence due to the rise of sea levels as the ice age ended. This event is dated to more than 7,000 years ago, perhaps as long as 10,000 years ago.

It seems that Nunn had become a fan of oral traditions, but how far does Nunn go in his trust of oral traditions?

It seems that Nunn had become a fan of oral traditions, but how far does Nunn go in his trust of oral traditions? It is well known that virtually every culture around the world has their flood traditions, including the Klamath people and Australian Aborigines. If the geologically related traditions of the Klamath people and Australian Aborigines are accurately preserved eyewitness accounts, then why aren’t their flood traditions viewed as evidence of a real event too? While flood legends are dismissed as purely myth, we see so many commonalities with the biblical account (a man and his family are warned of the coming disaster, they survive a global flood on a boat, usually with many animals, birds are often sent out to see if the ground is dry, etc.). This leads to the obvious conclusion that it is the same event, the global flood of Noah’s time.