It’s real, and here’s what the skeptics need to consider here. Everything written in the bible when taking into account people by name always depics an actual individual, a real circumstance and this is the underlying basis within the OT.
This is a classic example of “begging the question.” You can’t say that every instance naming an individual is meant to be historical until you have proven that this particular one is historical. Otherwise you’re arguing in circles.
To deny Noah’s existence, might as well deny Abraham, Moses, David, and all of the people mentioned in the bible, for if you deny one, using that logic, you are denying all of them.
No, that’s not logical at all. Why not take each of these cases individually and look at the evidence? The “if one is unhistorical, they must all be” argument carries no weight whatsoever. It’s bare assertion based on dogmatic presuppositions.
The bible makes it very clear when it’s speaking in terms to teach not based upon any particular individual, there really is no question in this matter where it addresses these cases.
Could you give an example of what you are talking about here?
Ok, we analyze the story, why on earth would there be actual measurements of the arc detailed out? What is there to gain by learning of it, the reason that there alone is to direct the reader to know, this is a literal event, the skeptics have no explanation for it to go into that kind of detail because they cannot find anything to learn from it using their logic.
That’s a valid argument, but have you actually read a number of historical-critical commentaries? Did they really have no account of the purpose of this detail whatsoever? Or are you simply guessing that they don’t have an explanation because from your perspective you can’t see how they could have one?
Furthermore, this isn’t exactly huge detail. It could be simply a vivid narrative touch, or it could have symbolic value (there seems to be some sort of equivalence between the “ark” here and the “Ark of the Covenant”). Or it could in fact be part of a tradition that had been handed down about a boat made to ride out a real flood. (I think this is unlikely, but not impossible.) That would not prove that there was really a worldwide flood that wiped out every land creature on the planet except those inside the ark.
We look to the beginning of Genesis and all of the animals are named by man, they are brought to him for that purpose, this clearly shows that God can do this again, in this case, with gathering two of each kind to board the arc.
Unquestionably there is an echo of the creation story here. But that’s a theological point, not a historical one.
We then got the the spot where the rainbow is revealed and shown as a sign of God’s promise. This is the very first rainbow ever seen before, the reason it’s the first is because the planet prior to this had an extra layer of atmosphere, a layer of water that surrounded it, it acted in a similar manner to our ozone layer, yet was much more effective. There were no rains, only mists before, yet this layer was realeased, pooring itself upon the planet, that was the source of the flood waters. Now, that the atmosphere changed, clouds formed as a result, and we know how they interact with the sun’s ray’s to produce a rainbow.
Yes, the “canopy theory.” I was fed that theory as a kid in my fundamentalist biology textbooks. I have yet to meet a scientist who takes it seriously.
That layer also accounts to the extended life spans from the day’s of old, take note how man’s life spans were immediately cut shorter, this is the result of no longer having that protective layer…
So only ultraviolet rays make human life shorter? That doesn’t make sense to me. Furthermore, the life spans after the Flood were still huge. How do you account for that? It makes much more sense to say that long life spans are part of how ancient people described their long-past ancestors who were believed to be closer to the gods (or in this case, to God). I see no reason to take those numbers literally.
A literary explanation simply makes more sense than a pseudo-scientific one, and it has more actual relevance for our faith. I prefer to leave these sorts of “scientific apologetics” to the Muslims!
Edwin
If the flood in the oldest of the Mesopotamian stories occurred in 5000 (the date suggested for the Flood in the “Black Sea hypothesis”),** it would be far too early to have been written down: writing was not invented until about 3500 at the earliest. If the Flood was what Robert Best suggests - an inundation centred on the Persian Gulf in 2900 - it might in principle have been recent enough to be related in writing. “In principle” being the operative words - the actual date of the earliest Mesopotamian text is about 1900 or so, I think. **