Is the biblical story of Noah’s Flood a true account? (moral, Revelation)

[LeMaverick]

The tale seems to be an unrealistic attempt to “shock and awe” with the power of a favorite super-human being. Conditions as described seem impossible, yet the tale is often presented and defended as being true.

If the flood account is exaggerated or merely a moralistic tale, it casts doubt upon all aspects of the literature of which it is part. If one or more parts of the text are not true, what parts (if any) are true? How can anyone distinguish with certainty the true from the false?

[wwlb08]

I believe that the account of the flood is entirely true. I don't doubt any of it. After all, 'with God, all things are possible' - Matthew 19:26.

[astarath]

Of course it's possible it makes total sense to me! God flooded the world...why not ?

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by wwlb08

I believe that the account of the flood is entirely true. I don't doubt any of it. After all, 'with God, all things are possible' - Matthew 19:26.

The Easter Bunny is possible too wwlb, though I doubt you believe in him.
I find it odd that many religious people require empirical evidence of most everyday phenomena, but except an entire class of events under the rubric of religious revelation.
What no-one would believe if they heard it from a neighbor or on the 10:00 news, the faithful will accept unquestioningly from ancient compilations of religious speculation.

[wwlb08]

the faithful will accept unquestioningly

I'm sorry that you seem to think people with faith just read a book and believe it, no questions asked.
I believe that there is evidence to prove the Bible true, and as the Bible says that God cannot lie and the Bible is the inspired Word of God, I believe all that is written in the Bible.
What evidence can you tell me about that the easter bunny exists?

[Seyorni]

You seem to be accepting as axiomatic that "the Bible is the inspired word of God." Supporting this with a statement like "God cannot lie" smacks of somewhat circular reasoning.
I could say something like "the Quran says it is the inspired word of God so, as the inspired word of God, I don't question its assertion." Clearly, that wouldn't make sense.

What I'm questioning is your axiomatic acceptance of the Bible as the infallible worrd of God.

[wwlb08]

I don't just accept it. As I said in my previous post 'I believe that there is evidence to prove the Bible true' and because I believe the Bible from the evidence which I know of,(e.g prophecies which have come true, the continual existance of the Jews (God's people), archealogical evidence, one main theme running throughout the Bible which fits perfectly throughout all the books of the Bible, even though there are 66 books in the Bible, with many different writers, etc etc) I believe what it says and it says that God does not lie. It also says that
'All scripture is given by inspiration of God...'. So if I believe that the Bible is true, then I must believe what it says. Therefore if it says there was a flood 4000 years ago which destroyed human kind (save 8 people) then that's what happened.

[sandy whitelinger]

Buckle your seat belts....here we go again. Another long ride. If you need to go, go now. We won't be stopping for at least another 400 miles.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by LeMaverick

The tale seems to be an unrealistic attempt to “shock and awe” with the power of a favorite super-human being. Conditions as described seem impossible, yet the tale is often presented and defended as being true.

If the flood account is exaggerated or merely a moralistic tale, it casts doubt upon all aspects of the literature of which it is part. If one or more parts of the text are not true, what parts (if any) are true? How can anyone distinguish with certainty the true from the false?

There's no evidence other than faith to say that version of the flood story is true. However, that the earth was once flood seems to be true as evidenced by the number of unrelated cultures with a flood story.

[kateyes]

There is some scientific evidence of catastrophic flooding in the Middle East (the known world at the time). Bob Ballard of Titanic fame--has done research under the sponsorship of National Geographic:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/bl.../ax/frame.html

And seems to have found evidence of a great flood. It is also not unbelievable that the survivors--attributed the flood to God's displeasure. I think in most of the Bible there are elements of historical events--some believe Sodom and Gamorrah were destroyed by natural events--but the blame went to God because people had to feel they could prevent this from happening to them. If they were dutiful worshippers of thier God--catastophic events wouldn't happen to them. The Greek and Romans attributed many natural catastrophes to the wrath of one God or another. The Hawaiians made sacrifices to try and appease the angry volocano God.

There are those who believe the origanal concept of religion/God was to try to explain the otherwise unexplainable.