The Bible is literally true, but each detail is not.

I agree it is probable that a real event inspired the Flood story and that reminiscence of the event may be less than accurate.In addition to these premises, please consider the likelihood that Bible translators of the Renaissance (450 years ago), did not understand their own terminology in the same sense we do today.The King James Version, for example, was published less than 100 years after Copernicus while religionists were still up-in-arms over his 'godless' theory. The Protestants were persecuting Kepler and others. The Catholics had just burned Bruno and were about to arrest Galileo. No self respecting Christian, and certainly no Bible translator, would have committed the heresy of calling Earth a planet. Even less inclined to do so would be the Bronze Age scribes who penned Genesis in the first place. Thus, as it appears in Genesis and throughout the Bible, the word 'earth' is in no case a planetary reference.There is no evidence that the Bible speaks of planet earth and every evidence to the contrary. Every Bible of the Renaissance was produced by men who did not believe earth is a planet and quoted their own translations of the Bible to prove that it is not a planet. In other words: We moderns don't even understand the most popular English language Bible of all time (last edited in 1769 and still selling like hotcakes). And if we have not yet figured out the simple fact that the Bible translators themselves did not intend to suggest that the biblical word 'Earth' means 'planet,' then we have a long way to go before we can assess what the Bible 'literally' means. i.e. what the original authors intended.I shall leave the term "mountains" for another time.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Please pardon my ignorance in that I am not familiar with your convictions regarding the veracity of the Flood tradition. I must, of course, take issue with the suggestion that the flood was a global event, i.e. planet wide. I am confident that it was not, and my evidences are drawn from textual considerations rather than geological ones (although I am quite impressed with the geological evidence). I suppose we could cop out and say that the flood is metaphorical of harmful nature and the ark a symbol of superior veterinary skill but somehow I expect you would reject that tack (I hope).So. Shall we discuss it here, or shall we have it out in a separate thread? Or were you being facetious?

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This may be what you are seeking. (Bold emphasis mine)

quote:

---

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died." Gen 7:21,22

---

So does the Bible 'literally' say that the whole world was under water? I don't think so. Even though it may seem like it to a casual reader.Compare the above with the following:

quote:

---

"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so. And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good." Genesis 1:9,10

---

Thus, in the Flood narrative, we have a reiteration of the biblical definition of 'earth.' Not as direct perhaps but equally clear. Then there is this, where "the ground" is apparently substituted for 'the earth' or 'the dry [land],' perhaps in the interest of literary relief.

quote:

---

"And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark." Genesis 7:23

---

That there is no mention of aquatic life may indicate that the author considered it a 'no brainer.' Not so however, for a modern biologist who would immediately consider the effect of salt water on the many fresh water life-forms.Aside from the above considerations: I think it odd that the rationale for this watery destruction was that "all flesh" was corrupted (6:12). Even so, reproductive representatives of all flesh were carefully collected and preserved "... to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth." (Genesis 7:3)If we are unaware of ancient natural philosophy and its specific terms then we cannot even know what 'literal' means in terms of understanding Genesis; and Genesis is just the tip-of-the-iceberg when it comes to popular misconceptions of biblical terminology; a sad situation best addressed by a well informed and honest clergy; a clergy which values factual truth over lucrative 'truth' so-called.Thanx for lisning.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

Same reason an 'ark' is needed in any flood.I think an analogy may be drawn between Noah's Flood and Katrina's. One might say that "the dry land" was destroyed by Katrina. One might say that "every living thing died" that was on "the dry land;" Or, that everything "on the ground" was destroyed.How many people, how many cats and dogs were drowned in that disaster? Even so, a man with a boat might save both family and animals. One might say that every pet died which was not in the boat. One might say that were it not for the boat, no one and no pets would have been saved out of that great flood.There is no need to point out the fact that the area flooded was a small portion of one continent. Everyone in our time is aware of that flood's limitation, even those who were involved (if they thought about it). Even so, from the perspective of those who were there, on the ground, in the water, struggling for their lives, the affected area was devastatingly vast; extending to the horizon and beyond.There was no hope of escaping the general destruction (drowning, exposure, dehydration, starvation) unless, of course, there was a boat (or a helicopter). I am sure that many of those rescued from that watery death could appreciate a poetic description of the event in terms of water covering the whole world. It did, in fact, cover their whole world. Indeed. On the other hand one cannot always attribute the text to allegory or metaphor. As with any great puzzle, one must study the pieces individually and collectively. In the case of a great word puzzle, such as the Holy Bible, one must consider each word individually and in its context; and trace the evolution of each word and each idea presented. Short of gruelingly tedious and exhaustive research there can be no understanding of such archaeological artifacts (strange marks on broken tablets, bits of ink on rotting leather, hieroglyphs on moldy papyrus; all of it in dead languages). With more than 100 English language translations available and more than 1000 denominations of Christianity competing for that "One True" interpretation; I think we can agree that if this is "God's Word" then "God" doesn't give a rip whether we understand it or not.

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

The operative word here is seems.All FleshIt may be bit nitpicky to say but 'literally' speaking, ALL flesh includes every living thing: Noah, his family and creatures of the sea. So, NO. God is NOT punishing ALL flesh. In fact, he is assuring that 'ALL flesh' will NOT be destroyed. He preserves alive a mating pair of every kind of ALL flesh.Whole PlanetIt doesn't say 'whole planet' because no one imagined earth to be a planet at that time. Genesis was written at about the same time as global theory (the idea that 'earth' and sea are wrapped around a huge ball of rock) made its debut (c.500 BC). Even after the Church of Rome adopted global theory as a part of Aristotle's philosophy (c. 300 AD), it refused to consider the possibility of continents other than those already known: Europe, Asia, and Africa. The King James Version uses the word 'planet' only once, and NOT in reference to 'earth.' Both the Roman Church and Protestant Reformers made clear that they did not believe earth is a planet and did not tolerate anyone who did believe it.Whole WorldEven if the author of Genesis had said 'whole world' we could not then assume that he imagined a global reality for we assume he is writing for an audience with pre-global sensibilities. Even in the context of a well established global theory: Saint Luke identifies "all the world" as that territory under the jurisdiction of Rome (Luke 2:1). And the 'whole world' known at that time was delineated by maps of the day, such as this Roman ORBIS TERRARUM (circle of lands) described in about 20 AD. Starting OverYou may have noticed, as you cruised chapters six through eight looking for material, that there is a lot of repetition. This comes from there being several (at least four) flood traditions represented there. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this here so I will fast forward to my favorite part. According to the story, the Lord God learns a lesson. You have already given us part of it:

quote:

---

God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5

---

Now, God had already cursed the ground And when Noah is born, his father predicts that he will bring them relief from having to toil in: Then, with the ground, land, earth already under a curse, the Lord swears to kill everyone because the: So he does it. He kills everybody (almost) and everything (well, sort of) and wipes the slate clean. Then, in the aftermath, when Noah starts the barbecue and lays on a couple of T-bones, the Lord smells it and swears that he will never destroy everything like that again because, says the Lord: In other words. He's Born This Way!!Well, Gee Whiz Jehovah! You can chalk one up to experience!

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -