Thank you. Very reasonably stated. I would argue, though, that since so many completely unrelated cultures have a flood tradition, i.e. catastrophe by water, that it is highly reasonable to assume that it was water-based on just anthropological evidence. I cannot think of anything else, i.e. meteor/plagues/famines, that would have been "translated" into Flood stories by hundreds of cultures around the globe.
Shoeshine, I agree. I would also add that a failure to find remnants of an ark on Ararat would not disprove the theory of an ancient catastrophic flood in the same way that finding such remnants would not prove the accuracy of the Bible in a religious sense. The former is best left to science and the latter to faith.
Highly unlikely imo that the ark will ever be discovered. Again, it probably came to rest in the foothills of the region and would have almost certainly been later plundered for its wood which is highly valuable and relatively scarce in the region. Again, scholars have noted that Genesis 1-9 only gives place names in the Mesopotamian region. It is only post chapter 10 that has geography mentioned outside of this area. By inference then it is imo most reasonable to assume that the Flood only needed to cover the Mesopotamian region and would not need to cover Mt. Ararat itself (or the Himalayas for that matter).
True - You cannot prove the details of Genesis with the anthropological/geological evidence. I admit that...But I felt I had to respond to some of the (imo) baseless comments earlier in the thread...
Genesis 19 . And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. under the whole heaven.....is a Local Flood ??? Take into account that people didnât have any substantive knowledge of geography and meteorology thousands of years ago. It is somewhat obvious today that Noah's ark and a flood as described in Genesis, whether local or global, is patently dippy, other than to those who are more susceptible to such notions of absurdity. Biblical fables are also fertile ground for creationistsâ contortions, when attempting to fit fictional fantasy into reality. Continuous records in the form of scribes' chronicles mention no exceptional or unusual flooding, except for the Nile bursting its banks, which was an expected annual event. Even though Local flooding around Sumaria was dramatic and extensive according to geological records, there was no interruption in the Sumerian culture, which The Adventure's of Noah and his Ark as written would have caused. It's folklore. Apocalyptic Hebrew story telling. Personally, I prefer Goldilocks and the Three Bears as a fairy tale.
Take it literally when it serves your purpose, or take it symbolically when it serves your purpose, just like the Fundalmental Theist, the Fundamental Atheist uses the Bible to serve their purpose. If the instructions are to take the Bible on faith, why do you use the intellect? Simple, you don't use faith, as is your choice. When you then apply your choices in life to other people, then you become exactly like the fanatics who preach their respective religions, political beliefs, etc. on others.
The story of Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is actually a retelling (modified somewhat for its target audience) an even older flood myth (Gilgemesh is itself supposed to have been a retelling of an even older tale). A flood myth of some kind or other is global - peoples around the world have some kind of ancient mythology of a flood. Whether that's an ancient memory of some large scale flood event (some will immediately think of Atlantis) or a retelling of a single ancient myth that traveled around the globe over thousands of years with explorers, who knows.
Faith in a literal Bible confirms a literal Bible Faith in a non literal Bible confirms a non literal Bible Faith in a literal Goldilocks and the Three Bears confirms a literal Goldilocks and the Three Bears Faith in a non literal Goldilocks and the Three Bears confirms a non literal Goldilocks and the Three Bears Faith in God confirms God Faith in No God Confirms No God Simple. Choosing Faith proves any choice you choose whether valid or not.
This is showing your cultural bias. I think it's amusing that Flood Geology has so captured the minds of even materialists that they can only interpret Genesis through it's lens. Noah/Moses and other Biblical figures from that time probably had no idea that there wass an Australia, a Savannah, an Appalachia, a Copper Canyon... In context they would be talking about the known world to them, i.e. the Mesopotamian valley and I can't see any reason to assume otherwise. This is fairly common in scripture. For example, Paul in Romans claims that the gospel had "gone into the known world". Of course, the gospel had not gone to the Aboriginees..What he meant was that the gospel had gone into the world as he knew it, i.e. the Roman empire which was true.