Diogenes the Cynic

And the thing is, once they bring in magic, then any naturalistic aspects of the story just become more illogical.

If God magicked all the animals into the Ark and magically kept them fed, then why did he need an Ark at all? Why not just magically zap them into the future? Why preserve them at all for, that matter? He created the damn animals, right? So why can't he create them again?

Why did he even need a flood? If he wanted to get rid of all the humans he could have just snapped his fingers and made them disappear. And why did he create those wicked humans in the first place if he knew they were going to be so horrible he would have to drown them? Why not just start with Noah?

Nothing in the story makes any logical sense.

Ulrich

<sarcasm>
It is obvious that Noah actually built a Hypercube, rather than a boat, and was thus able to fit as many animals as needed into it. Either that, or Noah was actually Dr. Who, and he just stuffed all of those animals into his TARDIS.
</sarcasm>

More than likely this story was based on the local flooding event in the Bosporus, and it grew with the telling. To those affected by the flood it probably did seem like their entire world flooded. As they began to tell this tale to incredulous people, they had to add details to make it seem true. The size of the boat was probably larger than anyone at that time could conceive, and they would only know about animals from that geoghraphical area, so it would seem plausible that the boat was large enough to hold two of every creature they knew of.

Of course, thousands of years later, the concept is utterly ridiculous.

Mickie

I would say that it is plausable that the story MAY have orginated with a local flooding event. I wouldn't give it "more than likely" since whatever the original story may have been it has long been perverted into something beyond all logic.

Ulrich

Sure, I don't have a problem with that. :thumbs:

The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh is also quite often given as a source for the Flood Myth, but there are very few similarities between those stories. I find it more likely that both stories are inspired from another source, although the Babylonian captivity does lend credence to the Gilgamesh connection. The Flood Myth is a less fantastic narrative, so I find it hard to believe that it was based on Gilgamesh, as these stories seem to get more fantastic with each revision.

Celsus

Very few? What's your definition of "few"?
Have you heard of Atrahasis? On what basis do you conclude that stories (from the ANE, presumably) get more fantastic with each revision?

Joel

PhilVaz

sparrow << How would you say that a local instead of global flood has affected your theology? Do you believe in an old Earth? Evolution? >>

I am a theistic evolutionist, or some call them "evolutionary creationist." The earth is 4.5 to 4.6 billion years old, and we evolved from a first life several billion years ago. My views on theistic evolution are explained below, but I don't have the whole theological conflicts worked out yet. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does teach a literal, historical Adam/Eve, but at the same time respects modern science. See the Catechism online, paragraphs 355ff on creation, and 385ff on the Fall.

Another good document that represents my view is from the International Theological Commission headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, especially paragraphs 62, 63, 64 are relevant

I believe what the Catholic Church officially teaches, so I consider myself orthodox or conservative, and I also try not to check my brain at the door when it comes to reason or science. And I think I'm doing pretty well on that. :wave:

Another book to get from a conservative evangelical view is Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller

My views here, I quote a lot of people, and rip off Dalrymple, don't get me in trouble

Theistic Evolution vs. Six-Day Creation

Phil P

Jon Promnitz

If the flood was local, why didn't god just tell Noah to move? Why spend over 100 years building a boat when you could simply travel away from the disaster?

Lógos Sokratikós

What about the extra padding on the floor for when the pair of brontosauruses got running away from the hungry pair of Tyrannosauruses?

Must have been kept together by nails of miracles...

Lógos Sokratikós

Oh! I forgot! Paleontologists suggest that brontosauruses had to wade in the water to be able to keep breathing with those immense bodies!

Noah got luck! His ark had an internal pool! Coool!

PhilVaz

JonProm << If the flood was local, why didn't god just tell Noah to move? >>

Um because according to the Genesis text, God didn't. He told him to build the boat, and not to move. The flood covered the area around Mesopotamia, all the area that Noah, his family, and those around him were familiar with. I don't have a solid biblical case for a local flood all worked out, I suggest it was local since the scientific evidence stands against a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago, and geologists, even Christian ones, haven't interpreted Genesis literally for at least 200 years. The Catholic Church fully supports modern science, consider the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the numbers of past members who have won the Nobel Prize.

However, some folks have made a solid biblical (and historical, logical, etc) case for a local flood. You might want to check out this site, I don't agree with the site's anti-evolution stand, but his "biblical case" for a local flood is quite good:

The Genesis Flood and why it is Local

The other view is that the flood and most of the material of Genesis chapters 1-11 is written in the genre of myth. But I don't take that view (yet).

Phil P