Implausibility of the flood tale

[Zzyzx]

.
In a thread discussing the different lengths of time Genesis assigns to the Earth being flooded, mention was made of other implausibilities of the flood tale -- including:

1) A wooden boat much larger that any known to exist and built by a 500 year old man
2) Millions of animals gathered from all over the world and redistributed afterward
3) A billion cubic miles of water sudden appearing -- then disappearing afterward
4) Eight people providing for millions of diverse animals (some carnivores) for a year
5) Repopulating all the continents with humans and other animals in a few thousand years (and producing the great genetic diversity known to exist).

Are those (and other) implausibilities sufficient grounds to conclude that in all likelihood the flood tale is fable, legend, myth, folklore or fiction?

If not, why not? What rational explanation can be made for them?

[JLB32168]

The site of the flood would have to meet three requirements. First, it would have to be capable of containing the waters of the flood. In order to do this, there needs to be a basin, with no outlet to the sea. If there were an outlet, the water would simply run out of the area.

Second, the flood would have to fit the parameters mentioned in the Bible. The source of the waters is not in question. The only point that matters here is that Noah believed that the world was flooded, and that all the mountains were covered with water.

Third, foes the proposed location agree with the geography mentioned in the Genesis account? It would have to flood the areas populated by mankind.

[Zzyzx]

.

The site of the flood would have to meet three requirements. First, it would have to be capable of containing the waters of the flood. In order to do this, there needs to be a basin, with no outlet to the sea. If there were an outlet, the water would simply run out of the area.

Second, the flood would have to fit the parameters mentioned in the Bible. The source of the waters is not in question. The only point that matters here is that Noah believed that the world was flooded, and that all the mountains were covered with water.

Third, foes the proposed location agree with the geography mentioned in the Genesis account? It would have to flood the areas populated by mankind.

All of that is irrelevant because anything short of a worldwide flood "to the tops of mountains" killing all creatures except those on a barge does NOT meet the Genesis claim.

[JLB32168]

All of that is irrelevant because anything short of a worldwide flood "to the tops of mountains" killing all creatures except those on a barge does NOT meet the Genesis claim.

That’s only important to you. I don’t think that God wrote the Bible. I think that God inspired men to write it and that many times it reflects their imperfect knowledge. I believe that to be the case with the account of the deluge.
Certainly the text allows for the interpretation of a local flood. The English “whole earth� is the Hebrew kol erets. The Hebrew concept is also used in other areas of Genesis to describe local areas: 1) The name of the first [river where Eden is] is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
And
“And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush.� (Gen 2:13)
The Greek Septuagint uses the same device so you’ve presupposed that the English text refers to the whole earth when indeed the Hebrew and Greek don’t demand such an interpretation. In fact, the words kol erets or tis gys (the latter being the Greek) is used in the OT more often to refer to local areas.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 173 by JLB32168]

...then God inspired a gross over exaggeration of a local flood tale, where pretty much every detail in the story as written is not to be believed, knowing (since he's God) that people like myself who only speak English will misinterpret the story?
Yup, makes sense.

[JLB32168]

...then God inspired a gross over exaggeration of a local flood tale . . .

It’s only a gross exaggeration if the traditional English interpretations are correct, which hasn’t been demonstrated to be correct. In fact, I’ve demonstrated how the Greek and Hebrew allow for the interpretation of a localized flood and how the term translated “whole earth� in the English refers to a local area in almost every other place in the OT.

That you completely disregard all evidence contra your initial assertion (that the writer wishes to convey the idea of a world-wide flood) is your affair.

[rikuoamero]

...then God inspired a gross over exaggeration of a local flood tale . . .

It’s only a gross exaggeration if the traditional English interpretations are correct, which hasn’t been demonstrated to be correct. In fact, I’ve demonstrated how the Greek and Hebrew allow for the interpretation of a localized flood and how the term translated “whole earth� in the English refers to a local area in almost every other place in the OT.

That you completely disregard all evidence contra your initial assertion (that the writer wishes to convey the idea of a world-wide flood) is your affair.

What about the other plot points in the story? What about the claim of only two of every animal (or seven pairs, depending on which chapter you read)? What about the reason for this supposedly being to wipe out all evil? What about the plot point of Noah and his family being the only human survivors?
Are all those errors of translation too?

[Zzyzx]

.

All of that is irrelevant because anything short of a worldwide flood "to the tops of mountains" killing all creatures except those on a barge does NOT meet the Genesis claim.

That’s only important to you.

It is doubtful that I am the only person who considers it important that the Genesis tale cannot be "explained" (or excused) by claiming that the fabled flood was local.

I don’t think that God wrote the Bible. I think that God inspired men to write it

What evidence supports the claim that God "inspired men to write"? That you think so is immaterial.

and that many times it reflects their imperfect knowledge.

I agree that Bible tales reflect "imperfect" (woefully inadequate) knowledge.

I believe that to be the case with the account of the deluge.

If humans did not write accurately about some things (such as the flood) why should they be expected to write accurately and truthfully about such things as the "resurrection?"

Certainly the text allows for the interpretation of a local flood. The English “whole earth� is the Hebrew kol erets. The Hebrew concept is also used in other areas of Genesis to describe local areas: 1) The name of the first [river where Eden is] is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
And
“And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush.� (Gen 2:13)
The Greek Septuagint uses the same device so you’ve presupposed that the English text refers to the whole earth when indeed the Hebrew and Greek don’t demand such an interpretation. In fact, the words kol erets or tis gys (the latter being the Greek) is used in the OT more often to refer to local areas.

Word play does NOT address supposed statements from God promising to destroy all creatures he created (as most are aware by reading Genesis). Is that in error too?

[JLB32168]

What about the other plot points in the story? What about the claim of only two of every animal (or seven pairs, depending on which chapter you read)?

Two of every unclean animal and seven of every clean animal – but why should I have a problem with any of this since I don’t think the text is meant to be slavishly literal?

You’re not dealing with a stereotypical fundamentalist, Dude.

[JLB32168]

It is doubtful that I am the only person who considers it important that the Genesis tale cannot be "explained" (or excused) by claiming that the fabled flood was local.

Except that I’ve demonstrated that it can indeed be interpreted that way. Thus far you’ve not offered any evidence to counter the interpretation – other than mocking it and that’s not a logical rebuttal.

What evidence supports the claim that God "inspired men to write"? That you think so is immaterial.

Dude, I’m not interested in proving that. Reject it if you wish. I was merely addressing the implied claim that the Genesis (or the English translation of Genesis) is supposed to be perfect since God wrote it.

I agree that Bible tales reflect "imperfect" (woefully inadequate) knowledge.

Start a thread on it.

If humans did not write accurately about some things (such as the flood) why should they be expected to write accurately and truthfully about such things as the "resurrection?"

First of all, it hasn’t been established that humans wrote incorrectly about the flood since the text allows for the interpretation of a local flood. Secondly, one may believe whatever s/he wishes to believe and should consider that the only “rebuttals� you’ve given are ridicule of the opponent’s argument and that hardly evinces the truth of your argument.

Word play does NOT address supposed statements from God promising to destroy all creatures he created (as most are aware by reading Genesis). Is that in error too?

Actually, it was all breathing creatures on land. That said, if the majority of mankind was wiped out by a Caspian Sea flood then that’s acceptable for one who doesn’t hold that the Genesis accounts are supposed to be slavishly interpreted as many modern day American Evangelical Fundamentalists do.

It seems to me that there’s a lot of frustration on this board because one cannot use typical skeptic arguments w/another who doesn’t think that the text in question was meant to be a scientific treatise on how things came to be how they are.

[rikuoamero]

What about the other plot points in the story? What about the claim of only two of every animal (or seven pairs, depending on which chapter you read)?

Two of every unclean animal and seven of every clean animal – but why should I have a problem with any of this since I don’t think the text is meant to be slavishly literal?

You’re not dealing with a stereotypical fundamentalist, Dude.

Just to correct you from Genesis 6:19 (NIV)

You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.

Then from literally the next chapter, Gen 7:2-3

Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

So as I said, the instructions are different depending on which chapter one reads.

Now to continue...if as you assert, God 'inspired' this story but it's not literal, then this means God inspired a gross over exaggeration. An over exaggeration in the detail regarding the deaths of all living animals (sans the ones on the ark), the number of human survivors etc.
If you're not a fundamentalist, then what's the explanation for this? Did this event happen or not? If it did happen, then how is the story in Genesis any good, since its grossly exaggerated in practically every detail? (I'll give you the point about the whole earth, but only provisionally, since I don't speak Hebrew or Greek. Can anyone else who does speak them chime in, to say whether or not JLB is correct?)