(September 28, 2011 at 4:46 pm)BloodyHeretic Wrote: Obviously there was no global flood, it's physically and logistically impossible. Go with the theory you brought up, the one about a local flood inspiring such writings as we find about the flood in Genesis. It still mightn't be right, but it's so much more plausible. You know, I know it, everybody knows it and so the idea that the bible is the literal word of god disintegrates. A question for you Salty, does that change your faith?
I do think it is more plausible for it to be local, but then I think of the ark and the animals, there would be no need for the ark if it was just a restricted thing...then again, what if God wanted to only flood Africa, then that could be considered local and the animals would still need saving....etc
All in all, I think the account can be seen from different angles, the information that I read over certainly did have me thinking, "Wow, I never really considered if history could show the flood. I wonder what else history can show about the stories in the Bible." So, I definitely felt like I should know more history, thank you all my atheist friends for getting me out of the shopping malls and into the books, but my faith is rooted in the visible changes in my personality, my mindset, my actions and in my responses. I have reason to believe that Christ is real because after accepting him I changed in ways that I was incapable of doing on my own. As you can see, that kind of reasoning isn't effected by what history tells me.
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." Hebrews 11:6