Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[otseng]

Zzyzx and I have agreed to do a head-to-head debate on the Biblical flood.

The question for us to debate:
Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[Zzyzx]

[otseng]

[Zzyzx]

[Zzyzx]

[otseng]

Supposedly the flood occurred at least 5000 years ago.

The earliest iron smelting and forging of tools 1200 BC 1200 BC = 3200 years ago

"Iron appears to have been smelted in the west as early as 3000 BC, but bronze smiths, not being familiar with iron, did not put it to use until much later."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomery

"Iron seems to have been known here as early as 3000 BC, but first became an important metal about 1200 BC."
http://www.staff.hum.ku.dk/dbwagner/EARFE/EARFE.html

The earliest dated usage of iron appears around 4000 BC. This would have been
meteoric iron. This special type of iron contains a high percentage of nickel which
helps the iron to resist oxidation. Meteoric iron is clearly different from iron found
on earth and all early iron products would have been from meteoric iron.

http://www.sciencebyjones.com/metallurgy_notes.htm

These will fall at over 5000 years ago.

But even if the use of iron tools is questionable, bronze is not.

The place and time of the invention of bronze are controversial, and it is possible that bronzing was invented independently in multiple places. The earliest known tin bronzes are from what is now Iran and Iraq and date to the late 4th millennium BC, but there are claims of an earlier appearance of tin bronze in Thailand in the 5th millennium BC. Arsenical bronzes were made in Anatolia and on both sides of the Caucasus by the early 3rd millennium BC. Some scholars date some arsenical bronze artefacts of the Maykop culture in the North Caucasus as far back as the mid 4th millennium BC, which would make them the oldest known bronzes, but others date the same Maykop artefacts to the mid 3rd millennium BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age

Also, it is disputable that iron is superior to bronze. Certainly steel is superior to bronze, but this technology came later.

The reality is that ancient iron was far too variable in quality to be clearly superior to bronze. Pure iron is very soft; most ancient iron was impure and often brittle.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/WestTech/xancient.htm

"With the exception of steel, bronze is superior to iron in nearly every application."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze

"In its simple form iron is less hard than bronze"
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Pla ... oryid=ab16

Iron also oxidizes much more easily than bronze. So, based on these two qualities, bronze could've been more preferred than iron.

Also, bronze is an alloy of copper and tin. And iron is not an alloy. Iron ore is also much more available than copper and tin deposits. So, in terms of the composition, it would've been more difficult to create bronze.

[Zzyzx]

[Zzyzx]

[otseng]

[Zzyzx]

[otseng]