Noah's Ark: The Flawed Literalist Interpretation

[Individuality-ness]

I went to a private preschool when I was a kid. They taught Biblical stories, and espoused the idea that God loved us little 'uns. Granted, it was a block away from home.

The lies they'll tell, eh?

Granted, I grew up in an irreligious household. Nevertheless, I can still remember this.

[Bundesdeutschland]

I went to a private preschool when I was a kid. They taught Biblical stories, and espoused the idea that God loved us little 'uns. Granted, it was a block away from home.

The lies they'll tell, eh?

And so...you dismissed the story as illogical? In what way and evidence?

What? As a child? At that time I believed it, as any child brought up in the Catholic system would.

I got my fair share of fire and brimstone in Sunday School. I was safe in Primary, at least.

They only taught the "nice" stories at my primary.

Knox, just to set off on a slightly unrelated topic, I see your signature reads that God is malevolent. Question: how?

Click the link to go on an adventure.

All because of Catholicism huh? Well, guess what? I'm not a Catholic and I still believe it!

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

All because of Catholicism huh? Well, guess what? I'm not a Catholic and I still believe it!

Why do you believe the Noah's Ark story? It's not got much in the way of factual basis behind it.

[Chinese Regions]

You guys have the Church of England. *nod*

In fairness, as I've noted earlier in this thread, I was taught the literal Noah's Ark story in primary school.

Urgh remembering singing Christian rock'n'roll at my supposedly non-religious primary school.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

The lies they'll tell, eh?

Granted, I grew up in an irreligious household. Nevertheless, I can still remember this.

You lucky devil. I'm still drafting my excommunication letter.

The lies they'll tell, eh?


What? As a child? At that time I believed it, as any child brought up in the Catholic system would.


They only taught the "nice" stories at my primary.


Click the link to go on an adventure.

All because of Catholicism huh? Well, guess what? I'm not a Catholic and I still believe it!

Christian indoctrination is the same, Catholic or otherwise. It doesn't make the story any less false.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Granted, I grew up in an irreligious household. Nevertheless, I can still remember this.

You lucky devil. I'm still drafting my excommunication letter.

I want a copy of that draft.

[Bundesdeutschland]

All because of Catholicism huh? Well, guess what? I'm not a Catholic and I still believe it!

Why do you believe the Noah's Ark story? It's not got much in the way of factual basis behind it.

You may not like it, but I base my faith upon God and the Word and I believe it. I'm not exactly a Bible-Thumper or anything or some radical right-wingist claiming to be a Christian.

Really for me, it's based on faith alone. Evidence is fine but for me faith is my main driving force.

[Agritum]

Someone had the same idea as me.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

You lucky devil. I'm still drafting my excommunication letter.

I want a copy of that draft.

Not until it's finished. It would be considerably easier if Bishop Seamus Cunningham would accept confessions by email.

[Bundesdeutschland]

Granted, I grew up in an irreligious household. Nevertheless, I can still remember this.

You lucky devil. I'm still drafting my excommunication letter.

All because of Catholicism huh? Well, guess what? I'm not a Catholic and I still believe it!

Christian indoctrination is the same, Catholic or otherwise. It doesn't make the story any less false.

You don't have to believe if you don't want to. Really you don't! Go do your thing, harassing Christians and those who read the Bible, that's fine. You can't stop us Christians.

[Grave_n_idle]

Why do you believe the Noah's Ark story? It's not got much in the way of factual basis behind it.

You may not like it, but I base my faith upon God and the Word and I believe it. I'm not exactly a Bible-Thumper or anything or some radical right-wingist claiming to be a Christian.

Really for me, it's based on faith alone. Evidence is fine but for me faith is my main driving force.

I guess the question is, why would you believe part of a book, when all the evidence says that what it is describing is untrue.

Faith surely only carries you so far.

[Greed and Death]

Literally the very first part of the Epic i quoted, two lines of text, describes how "the deluge" was brought down on "a corrupt city".

The bits I quoted mention, variously:

Human wickedness in x city/area
Divine punishment
Flooding
An ark
A righteous man and family being saved
Animals going into the ark and being saved
The whole world being flooded (depending on how you read it)

The Genesis account is basically the same story with slightly different names.

Also - some of the specifics are very... specific.

Both accounts describe the vessel being sealed in pitch, having multiple stories, being divided within, having one door, and at least one window. Both accounts describe mountains being covered by the flood, the vessel landing on a mountain, birds being used to find land - of which the first two die, both accounts feature a ritual sacrifice after the landing, and god or gods smelling the meat and blessing the hero.

Even the phrasing can be remarkably similar. Look at the translations of Genesis 8:21 and the Gilgamesh description "The gods smelled the savor, the gods smelled the sweet savor."

(Yes, I am obviously aware that I'm comparing translation - but the underlying sentiments are remarkably similar).

And what does this show us ? The Judeo-Xtian god does not like sweet, and is therefore on a low carb diet. This goes a long way in explaining why he gets cranky later and destroys a few towns for "wickedness".

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

You lucky devil. I'm still drafting my excommunication letter.


Christian indoctrination is the same, Catholic or otherwise. It doesn't make the story any less false.

You don't have to believe if you don't want to. Really you don't! Go do your thing, harassing Christians and those who read the Bible, that's fine. You can't stop us Christians.

Again, what's your objection to something disproving the literal Noah's Ark story being put up in a debate forum?

If Knox burst into your Church naked except only for a large picture of Richard Dawkins and started haranguing you about your faith, that'd be harassment, but you're posting in this topic voluntarily because you want to.

It makes no sense to complain about "harassing Christians" in a thread which you're voluntarily posting in and could easily ignore.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

You lucky devil. I'm still drafting my excommunication letter.


Christian indoctrination is the same, Catholic or otherwise. It doesn't make the story any less false.

You don't have to believe if you don't want to. Really you don't! Go do your thing, harassing Christians and those who read the Bible, that's fine. You can't stop us Christians.

I'm not harassing Christians. This is a debate forum, where we discuss eachother's point of view.

If, for example, you refuse basic logic on a debate forum, somebody is obviously going to pick you up on it.

[Pharthan]

You felt this was necessary?

Sometimes you need to state the obvious.

I'm working on an OP kind of like this except it deals with another entirely different topic which also has lots of support despite tons of evidence to the contrary.

For one complaining about people being too literal, you're taking one thing to literally and imperialistic yourself.
Consider the fact that the Flood Account also has on additional factor that, if such line of thinking is to be believed, pretty much makes your argument null-and-void: God.

Which pretty much makes the argument "If you don't believe in God, then you shouldn't believe in the Flood, either. If you do believe in God, then you must believe him to be an Active God rather than a Initial-Creation-Only-God."

Yes, I believe the Flood happened.
No, I do not believe it possible without God.
Yes, the OP is right in stating that by all rights and reason the Flood is not physically possible in our current state, and I was privy to this fact prior.

Which makes the entire argument rather cut and dry. The Flood, being such a remarkable feat, as the OP has stated, would only be possible were a deity to cause it.
If we are also going to argue the ability of said deity to do such a thing, on the assumption the deity exists, one must also consider said deity is also responsible for the creation of everything, a feat of such magnitude that we can't fully understand it.

[Individuality-ness]

If Knox burst into your Church naked except only for a large picture of Richard Dawkins and started haranguing you about your faith, that'd be harassment, but you're posting in this topic voluntarily because you want to.

Dude, I would pay to see that. *nod*

[Bundesdeutschland]

You don't have to believe if you don't want to. Really you don't! Go do your thing, harassing Christians and those who read the Bible, that's fine. You can't stop us Christians.

I'm not harassing Christians. This is a debate forum, where we discuss eachother's point of view.

If, for example, you refuse basic logic on a debate forum, somebody is obviously going to pick you up on it.

Eh...you're right on that part. It's just I've seen so many Christians being harassed and persecuted these days and...sometimes it does get the better of me.

[Greed and Death]

I seriously doubt that, we are talking about the Genesis account. There has been only 10 generations from Adam to Noah, agriculture didn't develop to such a large scale in a short period of time. People of the Bible era we're nomadic, they scavenge for wild grown plants and berries, agriculture and permanent land settling didn't develop till a hundred more generations later. Besides, Noah's flood story was not written, it was passed on orally through families. Writing was non-existent back then.

You're assuming the the myth of Adam and Eve is true. He appears to be assuming that the theory of evolution is true.

I have always been amazed by people who use literalism to disprove a theory of allegory. As thought of taking the whole book as allegory is someone how impossible.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I'm not harassing Christians. This is a debate forum, where we discuss eachother's point of view.

If, for example, you refuse basic logic on a debate forum, somebody is obviously going to pick you up on it.

Eh...you're right on that part. It's just I've seen so many Christians being harassed and persecuted these days and...sometimes it does get the better of me.

If you think Christians in (presumably) America are being "persecuted", then you need to check the definition of "harassment" and "persecution".

People questioning others' faith is not persecution.

[Agritum]

I'm not harassing Christians. This is a debate forum, where we discuss eachother's point of view.

If, for example, you refuse basic logic on a debate forum, somebody is obviously going to pick you up on it.

Eh...you're right on that part. It's just I've seen so many Christians being harassed and persecuted these days and...sometimes it does get the better of me.

Victim Complex much?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

If Knox burst into your Church naked except only for a large picture of Richard Dawkins and started haranguing you about your faith, that'd be harassment, but you're posting in this topic voluntarily because you want to.

Well, I might have to "harass" a few people in the future, then. *nods*

Dude, I would pay to see that. *nod*

Oh lawd.

[Bundesdeutschland]

Eh...you're right on that part. It's just I've seen so many Christians being harassed and persecuted these days and...sometimes it does get the better of me.

If you think Christians in (presumably) America are being "persecuted", then you need to check the definition of "harassment" and "persecution".

People questioning others' faith is not persecution.

It's not really only that; it's militant and sometimes it gets violent from what I see. Anyways, can we get back on topic...or are we still in topic?

[Grave_n_idle]

Also - some of the specifics are very... specific.

Both accounts describe the vessel being sealed in pitch, having multiple stories, being divided within, having one door, and at least one window. Both accounts describe mountains being covered by the flood, the vessel landing on a mountain, birds being used to find land - of which the first two die, both accounts feature a ritual sacrifice after the landing, and god or gods smelling the meat and blessing the hero.

Even the phrasing can be remarkably similar. Look at the translations of Genesis 8:21 and the Gilgamesh description "The gods smelled the savor, the gods smelled the sweet savor."

(Yes, I am obviously aware that I'm comparing translation - but the underlying sentiments are remarkably similar).

And what does this show us ? The Judeo-Xtian god does not like sweet, and is therefore on a low carb diet. This goes a long way in explaining why he gets cranky later and destroys a few towns for "wickedness".

His diet isn't going so well.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Dude, I would pay to see that. *nod*

Oh lawd.

Well there's your Uni fees sorted, at least.

[Big Jim P]

You lucky devil. I'm still drafting my excommunication letter.


Christian indoctrination is the same, Catholic or otherwise. It doesn't make the story any less false.

You don't have to believe if you don't want to. Really you don't! Go do your thing, harassing Christians and those who read the Bible, that's fine. You can't stop us Christians.

Harassing Christians?

When was the last time you had non-xtians knocking at your door first thing Saturday morning, attempting to get you to attend services?