(January 11, 2016 at 3:27 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(January 11, 2016 at 3:22 pm)athrock Wrote: Not personally, no. And I'm not a fan of Noah's Ark claims, so I don't pay much attention to people who think they found it.
However, I also think it is possible that the writer of that account in Genesis may have ASSUMED that flood waters covered the entire earth because a flood of some magnitude may have covered a significant but local portion of it. For example, the Great Mississippi River Flood of 1927 covered 27,000 square miles to a depth of up to 30 feet. That would probably seem like the whole world to someone in Noah's day.
Alternatively, he may have been speaking metaphorically when he stated that the waters covered the whole earth.
Neither scenario undermines the possibility that Noah built an Ark and rode out a local flood, does it?
Then the text is factually inaccurate, QED. Why do you feel that the exodus, for example, is not an example of precisely the same sorts of inaccuracy and misconception? Perhaps the exodus was one guy, his brother...and their wives and goats. How about Jospeh..and his coat of many colors...this is biographical?
You mean other than the fact that I've actually read the text?
The flood story is clearly talking about a LOT of water...but whether it was enough to cover the ENTIRE earth is another matter.
The Exodus story is clearly talking about a LOT of Israelites...more than one guy, his brother and their wives.