Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
True.
But it's symbolic meaning had truth value. It is not true in the same degree that something like "Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Boothe". And it's not true for everyone. But you can learn lessons from all these religions. It doesn't make their lies true.
What ttuth in what meaning?
Nothing except "water" is congruent with
Local floods make the Ark superfluous.
Well there was a large flood in the Tigris Euphrates valley system that could have been the inspiration for the Flood. But it would not have been a year long on the boat. The boat would have had only a few farm animals on it. The entire population of the Earth was not reduced to only eight people. In fact that flood was so minor in that aspect that it does not even make a blip as a population bottleneck in our genome. There was just a flood that was big enough so that if a boat was in the middle of it the occupants would only see water due to the curvature of the Earth. But again, that is a wide broad region of very low relief. It would only take a flood tens of miles wide to do that. Tens of miles is not much on a global scale.
Wouldn't Jesus's error, that fun is indeed necessary, show you that it's just writings by men?
Very true. But consider if a president falls down then it becomes news. That particular local flood was important because of the particular response of the affected... Table of nations.
Similar events beget different responses. The importance of noahs local flood lies in the response of table of nations.
How about a response that is not so much word salad?
These are random events. Not pre ordained. Noah could not be moved. And there was no 100 year ark.
Why was it not true?
Possible. But we are looking at this particular event as written in the Bible.
I will take that as a "no".
Don't put words in my mouth please. All I am saying is that all local floods are not the same.
No one said that they were. But the flood of Noah appears to be just as fictitious as the other flood myths.
It is easy to mythisize what is inconvenient. The local flood are same and not same. That is not the point. The similar floods beget different responses from the participants. Noahs descendants made a valiant response to that local flood. Thus it is remembered. No need to call it a myth.
Nope, there is no evidence of Noah, or his family. If the story occurred at all it was vastly different from the myth in the Bible. Calling it a myth is correct.