For those who want proof of the exodus

[athrock]

Then explain, without once resorting to fairytale devices, precisely how the largest wooden boat ever constructed without metal bracing managed to stock between two and seven of every animal on the planet, keep them fed and alive, maintained by a crew of eight for a whole year. Explain how the mountaintops got covered by water, where it came from and where it went afterwards. Explain how the only evidence for any of this is one story in a collection of mythological texts, and why anyone would even consider it as an historical event without reference to the story.

Let me attempt to explain it this way: I personally don't buy into the idea the some all-powerful being created everything that we can see, etc. in six 24-hour periods, and then took a day off to rest. I mean, seriously?

But OTOH, the more common understanding of Genesis is that the author is trying to convey a message about the creation of all things as best he can. It seems to me that he can be dead on about the who (God) and the what (creation) without needing to understand the how (evolution v. creationism). Doesn't this seem reasonable?

Similarly, IF (and I'm saying this because I'm trying to PRESENT the argument rather than ASSUME it) the author was trying to convey the basics of a story about God's judgment of the wicked, etc., would it be possible for him again to have the Who and What correct without necessarily getting the details spot on?

Now, I get that SOME fundamentalist types accept the literal interpretation of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but not all Christians - heck, not even the majority of Christians - do. So, why are you so intent upon holding such a simple-minded interpretation of the flood when Christians themselves do not?

It's a strawman argument, Stimbo, and not a terribly good one at that.