Summations Only

NoNukes writes:So how does any of that invalidate the Flood story or the Creation story?

GM writes:For instance it speaks of "and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven," being covered; now that could just mean the local area, but it doesn't seem like the most obvious meaning. It sounds more like everything was flooded, everything that could be flooded was flooded. They just didn't imagine it on a planetary scale because they had no such concept to work with.

GM writes:As I've said elsewhere, Ararat is the 48nd highest peak in the world. That effectively puts most of the world under water if Ararat is flooded. But that's in reality. We're talking about the Bible here.

GM writes:You've got to remember that these ancient authors had a very different concept of the world around them than we do. If the physical/geographical details of the story aren't believable, that shouldn't surprise us. The authors had no idea about the world around them. Or maybe they never meant for it to be a literal account. Maybe they always intended it to be a mythic story. Or maybe it was meant to be a myth and literally true. We shouldn't expect these authors to think like us or see the world like us.

CS writes:I agree that the word earth is not referring to a planet. But from the story as a whole, it doesn't make sense for the flood to be just a local one that didn't really flood everything.

Hyroglyphx writes:

quote:

---

I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth. -- Genesis 9:11

---

Obviously there have been many localized floods since this time.

Straggler writes:If it wasn't the entire world/planet/whatever one wants to call it - What was the point of saving two of each animal in the ark?