Where are we now with 'Noah's Ark'???

[Autolite]

In the documentary 'The God Who Wasn't There', there is mention that much of the biblical apocrypha was dumped because it was felt some of the stories were just too ridiculous for even the most simple minded folks to buy. They felt that without some serious editing, bible credibility would really suffer big-time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik7GRQ9hoVY

This makes me wonder, why would they keep the 'Noah's Ark' spiel?

I had mentioned in a previous thread that it was a Sunday school lesson about Noah's Ark that had planted the seed of Atheism in me.  Even as a little kid I was unable, in my little kid brain, to reconcile how adults could buy into such obvious horseshit. It was around this time that I had also ditched Santa Claus too (the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny had already long departed by then). 

I understand that today much of the clergy sell the 'Adam & Eve' story as a fictitious tale that is not meant to be taken literally. It is suppose to  be just a poetic representation of the beginning of man.   The gist being that evolution is true but "god-did-it".  But where are we now with 'Noah's Ark'?  Does the modern christian church still sell this story as being literally true?

If so, what's the advantage to clinging to the story?  The only message seems to be; "avoid pissing off anyone who has the power, means and authority to easily murder you".  Wouldn't this just  be a 'no-brainer' for the average adult???

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can go with the "it's a parable" dodge. Or you can accept that most people don't think about what's in the Bible, it would just confuse them. Or worse, make them think.

[Minimalist]

You have to put it in a historical context.  We have evidence of this particular myth going back to the Early Bronze Age and such heroes as Ziusudra, Atrahasis and Gilgamesh far preceding any "noah" in the record.  There are written records of the first two going back to the 17th and 18th centuries BCE which puts them solidly in the Middle Bronze Age and one can only guess how long the tales circulated prior to that.  Therefore one must assume that these tales were fully incorporated into the folklore of the entire region and, bullshit aside, the jews were nothing special.  Just a rather insignificant tribe of goat herders at a time when other nations formed great empires.  So when something resembling judaism began to coalesce, in the Persian period, they gathered up local legends and wrote them into their origin stories.

[Autolite]

  We have evidence of this particular myth going back to the Early Bronze Age and such heroes as Ziusudra, Atrahasis and Gilgamesh far preceding any "noah" in the record.  There are written records of the first two going back to the 17th and 18th centuries BCE which puts them solidly in the Middle Bronze Age and one can only guess how long the tales circulated prior to that. 

Yes I am indeed aware that the 'Noah' version was not the original flood story.  But wouldn't this make it even more of a reason for the christians to play it down?   What possible advantage would there be in claiming that the story is literally true?

I got to thinking about this after having a recent chat with a JW.  Apparently they still sell 'Noah's Ark' as a non-fiction tale...

[The Grand Nudger]

The advantage was credibility, continuity, cultural assent. "As we have long known and as our fathers have told us, x y and z....furthermore..... Christ!"

Regardless, christians -do- play it down. We'll never hear the end of "Well, that's OT stuff, it's an NT game now. Jesus rewrote the book!".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You have to put it in a historical context.  We have evidence of this particular myth going back to the Early Bronze Age and such heroes as Ziusudra, Atrahasis and Gilgamesh far preceding any "noah" in the record.  There are written records of the first two going back to the 17th and 18th centuries BCE which puts them solidly in the Middle Bronze Age and one can only guess how long the tales circulated prior to that.  Therefore one must assume that these tales were fully incorporated into the folklore of the entire region and, bullshit aside, the jews were nothing special.  Just a rather insignificant tribe of goat herders at a time when other nations formed great empires.  So when something resembling judaism began to coalesce, in the Persian period, they gathered up local legends and wrote them into their origin stories.

Nobody has issues with inclement weather, it's the "destroying the world because God can't make people who don't sin" part that a rational person has trouble with.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Many fables were made canon based on their popularity with the public. The Flood myth is one of those that tends to resonate with people. Also part of the reason it was around to be reappropriated in the first place.

[Autolite]

Regardless, christians -do- play it down.  We'll never hear the end of "Well, that's OT stuff, it's an NT game now. Jesus rewrote the book!".

Perhaps then the christians might want to consider a complete and thorough modern re-write of the entire bible.  I think I'd like to see a Quentin Tarantino screenplay on an updated and revised edition...

[Minimalist]

But wouldn't this make it even more of a reason for the christians to play it down?

First off it is a jewish tale.  You raise the far more interesting question of why did xtians feel compelled to attach the OT to their bullshit story?  After all, Marcion who wrote the first xtian "canon" was quite content to cut the jews out of it completely.

[Cyberman]

Cultural appropriation? After all, it's easier to sell something when there's already a market for it.