Which Bible Do You Trust, and Why?

[FlyersFan]

You keep saying “it didn’t happen” like that somehow settles the discussion — 

It does settle the discussion.   Regional floods around the world at different times does NOT equate to the story of Noahs Ark and Flood being real.   The story is flat out false.   It is not the literal truth of God.   It is an allegory.

[Creaky]

Because that's where the story came from.
The Hebrews stole the Gilgamesh story, rewrote it to fit their culture and religion.
The Noahs Flood didn't happen and the story is false.
Either something is the literal inerrant word of God or it's not.
In this case ... it's not.   It's not literally true.  It's allegory.

Or maybe it was just common history and everyone recorded it, like the flood

[Creaky]

It does settle the discussion.   Regional floods around the world at different times does NOT equate to the story of Noahs Ark and Flood being real.   The story is flat out false.   It is not the literal truth of God.   It is an allegory.

You have an opinion, it’s yours and you are welcome to your opinion, unless you were there, it’s just an opinion 
It did or didn’t, my opinion does not reflect yours
That settles it

[andy06shake]

Here is another little ""inconcistancy"" that could do with further explanation.

[FlyersFan]

Or maybe it was just common history and everyone recorded it, like the flood

All evidence says that there was no world wide flood wiping out everyone except 8 people floating on a boat 4,000 years ago.   The story is not literal history.   It didn't happen.

[FlyersFan]

You have an opinion, it’s yours and you are welcome to your opinion, unless you were there, it’s just an opinion 

No.   The fact is that the flood and noahs ark didn't happen.
That's not opinion.  That's fact.  Proven by science and history and sociology.
Just like its not opinion when I say the earth revolves around the sun.
It's fact.

[FlyersFan]

Here is another little ""inconcistancy"" that could do with further explanation.

More allegory.
Bible literalists flush reality down the toilet.
The bible does have some literal history in it.
But a whole lotta' allegory and mythology as well.
And it's not 'anti-God' to state the truth ... not everything in the bible is literal truth.

[3rdrockfrmsun]

More allegory.
Bible literalists flush reality down the toilet.
The bible does have some literal history in it.
But a whole lotta' allegory and mythology as well.
And it's not 'anti-God' to state the truth ... not everything in the bible is literal truth.

 Sure, a lot of Scripture is allegory — no argument there. But it’s also literal truth that the region did experience several major floods. To people living in Mesopotamia 7,000+ years ago, their entire world was a few river valleys wide. When that world went underwater, it wasn’t “regional” to them, it was the entire planet.

[FlyersFan]

 Sure, a lot of Scripture is allegory — no argument there. But it’s also literal truth that the region did experience several major floods. To people living in Mesopotamia 7,000+ years ago, their entire world was a few river valleys wide. When that world went underwater, it wasn’t “regional” to them, it was the entire planet.

Several major floods isn't the same as what is in the story.
Doesn't matter if it was 'real to them' or not.
Bottom line ... the story isn't true.
The story is very clear that GOD did a lot of talking to Noah etc etc.
But there was no Noah and God didn't talk to anyone.
It's not to be taken literally.

The bible literalists who scream 'heresy' because you state the truth about
the Noahs Ark story ... they don't know how to read the bible.

[andy06shake]

 Sure, a lot of Scripture is allegory — no argument there. But it’s also literal truth that the region did experience several major floods. To people living in Mesopotamia 7,000+ years ago, their entire world was a few river valleys wide. When that world went underwater, it wasn’t “regional” to them, it was the entire planet.

The problem is that the Bible doesn't explicitly describe the shape of the planet.

Just the regions familiar to its authors.

So like you suggest, the notion of a global flood can simply be understood as a regional flood by today's standards. 

Makes sense to me, and probably made a modicum of sense back then.

But they were working with a somewhat limited view, and hence the confusion that can arise.