The evidence of a Tigris Euphrates Noah flood about 2900 BCE

[Mountain Man]

We also have deposits that cannot possibly be laid down by a flood, such as arid deserts and the like, found smack dab in the middle of what have been called "Flood layers" all over the world.

It's curious that you readily agree with someone who would argue with you that this is proof that the Bible is a myth, and I'm not sure what your counterargument would be since you've already conceded his interpretation of the facts.

The thing is, Jesus and the apostles preached a literal worldwide flood, and furthermore, if we accept that the flood of Noah is just one of several massive floods throughout history (which is a common explanation) then it makes God a liar when he promised that he would never again destroy the earth with water. So based on my reading of scripture, I have to conclude that science probably got this one wrong, and I'm okay with that.

[Adrift]

if the flood was local, what was the purpose of saving all the animals?

Any reason that the animals in that region should not have been saved? That could mean the end of hundreds of unique species, and/or a much longer period of time before animals in other regions would start moving in and repopulating the area.

[Adrift]

It's curious that you readily agree with someone who would argue with you that this is proof that the Bible is a myth

This is not a very good argument against rogue's view. Presumably, skeptics don't believe in King James Onlyism either, but that doesn't mean then that King James Onlyism is correct. A broken clock can still be right twice a day.

The thing is, Jesus and the apostles preached a literal worldwide flood

I can't seem to find any passage by Jesus or the Apostles that suggest this. They definitely mention the flood as a historical event, but they don't mention (as far as I can tell) how universal it was.

Old Testament scholar Dr. Heiser has a good article on this subject here. Here's some snippets,

My purposeAnother purpose is to promote debate via inspection of the text, as opposed to pejorative or ad hominem

There are other ways to defend a local-regional view, but those are the backbone trajectories.

. . .

The Contextual Argument

[Mountain Man]

But to my next point, if the flood of Noah was just one of several massive floods throughout history then what of God's promise? Or is the theory that the flood of Noah was the last large scale flood, or that there was some other feature that makes it unique in the history of the world?

[Sparko]

Any reason that the animals in that region should not have been saved? That could mean the end of hundreds of unique species, and/or a much longer period of time before animals in other regions would start moving in and repopulating the area.

I don't know of any species that would be wiped out in a local flood. I could understand taking along livestock to have animals to raise and farm, but the bible talks about wild animals too. They could migrate back into the flooded area quicker than they could repopulate from the few on the ark. And why would God command him to take birds? If it were a local flood they could just fly away.

[tabibito]

But to my next point, if the flood of Noah was just one of several massive floods throughout history then what of God's promise? Or is the theory that the flood of Noah was the last large scale flood, or that there was some other feature that makes it unique in the history of the world?

That is why a factual account demands that the event could only have occurred in the distant past (in human terms) - more than 200 000 years ago. Humanity could not have been widely distributed at the time of the flood, even if Noah and crew were Homo Sapiens Sapiens and HSS, specifically, was the people referred to. Even at that - the covenant being between God and all flesh, it would be necessary to interpret "all flesh" as humanity, not as all living flesh. Otherwise we would be looking for one of the MASS extinction events.

[Mountain Man]

This is not a very good argument against rogue's view.

See the rest of my statement: "I'm not sure what your counterargument would be since you've already conceded his interpretation of the facts."

My point is that rogue has, in my opinion, left himself no way out, and I'm genuinely curious how he would reconcile this.

[Adrift]

But to my next point, if the flood of Noah was just one of several massive floods throughout history then what of God's promise? Or is the theory that the flood of Noah was the last large scale flood, or that there was some other feature that makes it unique in the history of the world?

I can't speak for rogue, but I don't think it was one of several massive floods. I think the narrative is referring to one specific extraordinarily massive flood that hit the region.

[Mountain Man]

That is why a factual account demands that the event could only have occurred in the distant past (in human terms) - more than 200 000 years ago. Humanity could not have been widely distributed at the time of the flood, even if Noah and crew were Homo Sapiens Sapiens and HSS, specifically, was the people referred to. Even at that - the covenant being between God and all flesh, it would be necessary to interpret "all flesh" as humanity, not as all living flesh. Otherwise we would be looking for one of the MASS extinction events.

Is your assertion, then, that the flood happened so long ago that the evidence for it no longer exists? And if that's case, why not simply accept the Bible's account of a global flood? Or is there evidence for an ancient localized flood that was massive enough to have conceivably killed the entire human population at the time?

[Mountain Man]

I don't know of any species that would be wiped out in a local flood. I could understand taking along livestock to have animals to raise and farm, but the bible talks about wild animals too. They could migrate back into the flooded area quicker than they could repopulate from the few on the ark. And why would God command him to take birds? If it were a local flood they could just fly away.

I agree, the animals two by two is difficult to reconcile with a local flood. Just another mysterious act of God?

[tabibito]

Is your assertion, then, that the flood happened so long ago that the evidence for it no longer exists? And if that's case, why not simply accept the Bible's account of a global flood? Or is there evidence for an ancient localized flood that was massive enough to have conceivably killed the entire human population at the time?

There is evidence that such a flood COULD have happened. Always assuming that the story has not been embellished, it would necessarily have occurred within a reasonably short time after Homo Sap Sap developed, and before the group had dispersed through a wide area. A decent sized island that went the way of Atlantis would provide the necessary scenario.

[Adrift]

I don't know of any species that would be wiped out in a local flood. I could understand taking along livestock to have animals to raise and farm, but the bible talks about wild animals too. They could migrate back into the flooded area quicker than they could repopulate from the few on the ark. And why would God command him to take birds? If it were a local flood they could just fly away.

I could think of a number of species that would be wiped out by a local flood. Heck, there are species of animals that have been hunted out the region and that have never come back. For instance, the auroch, the Asiatic lion, the addax, the wild ass, and the red deer. And birds too, like the lappet-faced vulture are facing extinction in the area. In fact, there's an organization whose goal it is to save endangered birds found in the Bible. They're called The Biblical Ornithological Society.

[Sparko]

I could think of a number of species that would be wiped out by a local flood. Heck, there are species of animals that have been hunted out the region and that have never come back. For instance, the auroch, the Asiatic lion, the addax, the wild ass, and the red deer. And birds too, like the lappet-faced vulture are facing extinction in the area. In fact, there's an organization whose goal it is to save endangered birds found in the Bible. They're called The Biblical Ornithological Society.

But God commanded them to take every kind of living creatures, not just endangered or specific ones. And he said he was ending all life under heaven. "17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it."

[Adrift]

But God commanded them to take every kind of living creatures, not just endangered or specific ones. And he said he was ending all life under heaven. "17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it."

Well, right. They weren't endangered because they were put on the ark. That's the point. And as pointed out above, what does "all" mean? What is the context referring to? That link I linked goes into the uses of "all" in the Bible, and how all in the Bible doesn't always mean every single one.

in that region.

[Sparko]

Well, right. They weren't endangered because they were put on the ark. That's the point. And as pointed out above, what does "all" mean? What is the context referring to? That link I linked goes into the uses of "all" in the Bible, and how all in the Bible doesn't always mean every single one.

in that region.

It says, "every living creature"

And what about "under heaven?"

IT seems like the context of the whole passage is saying everything that exists. Trying to shoehorn it into it meaning a local flood seems like a stretch. It might have been a local flood but the writer's seem to be claiming it is global.