Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[Skeptisch]

Chiasm -- a crossing or intersection of two tracts?

When someone with a deep seated need for belief reads and studies the Bible or Koran, s/he ends up with a deep seated feeling of euphoria. After all, belief, especially blind belief, is a virtue and blind belief is a great asset when studying these two books.

When someone with a deep seated need for reason and evidence reads and studies the same two books, s/he end up with a ‘thank goodness’ my brain is wired for reason and scientific evidence.

The former is not suited for a discussion about reason and evidence while the latter has all the prerequisites.

 

[Humbababa]

Bowman, regardless of whether the flood story has a concentric structure in Genesis or not the extent of the flood has to be determined by the context. I have no idea why you insist on basing your whole argument on the Hebrew word for land or earth when the story contains multiple references to the total destruction of all living things. According to your logic the covenant God establishes with mankind in Genesis 9 is actually a covenant with the inhabitants of Northern Mesopotamia (where the ark comes to rest).

Moreover, the Mespotamian stories on which the Genesis account is based contain exactly the same focus on the destruction of humankind as a whole. While they are undoubtably grounded in experiences of regularly occuring local floods common to the region (but not to Caanan), the stories themselves focus on universal themes set against a mythical backdrop.

Finally, every scholarly commentary on Genesis I have read agrees that the flood story in Genesis depicts a universal flood. Either you have not read the literature or you are deliberately burying your head in the sand.

 

[Bowman]

Bowman, regardless of whether the flood story has a concentric structure in Genesis or not the extent of the flood has to be determined by the context. I have no idea why you insist on basing your whole argument on the Hebrew word for land or earth when the story contains multiple references to the total destruction of all living things. According to your logic the covenant God establishes with mankind in Genesis 9 is actually a covenant with the inhabitants of Northern Mesopotamia (where the ark comes to rest).

Moreover, the Mespotamian stories on which the Genesis account is based contain exactly the same focus on the destruction of humankind as a whole. While they are undoubtably grounded in experiences of regularly occuring local floods common to the region (but not to Caanan), the stories themselves focus on universal themes set against a mythical backdrop.

Finally, every scholarly commentary on Genesis I have read agrees that the flood story in Genesis depicts a universal flood. Either you have not read the literature or you are deliberately burying your head in the sand.

Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis, brother.

Psalm 104 directly eliminates any possibility of a global flood.

Psalm 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with added detail).

The verse that eliminates a global flood follows:

He founded the earth on its foundations; it shall not be shaken forever and ever.
You have covered the deep as with a robe; the waters stood above the mountains.
From Your rebuke, they flee; from the sound of Your thunder, they hurry away.
They go up the mountains; they go down the valleys to the place which You
founded for them. You have set a boundary that they may
not pass over; they shall not return to cover the
earth. (Psalm 104.5-9)


Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local.


Biblical clues to the geographical limits on human habitation can be found in the place-names Genesis mentions or does not mention.

In Genesis 1-9 the text mentions place-names only in the environs of Mesopotamia.

From Genesis 10 onward, we encounter references (by name or direction) to places beyond Mesopotamia, in fact, to places covering much of the Eastern hemisphere.

This sudden shift from narrow to wider geographical range after Genesis 10 strongly suggests that until the time of the Flood, human beings and their animals remained in and around Mesopotamia. Therefore, to fulfill His purpose in sending the deluge, God would need to flood only the Mesopotamian plain and perhaps some adjacent territories.

Few readers seem to catch the significance of statements about the source of the floodwater. In one respect the text itself rules out the global Flood interpretation by telling us where the water came from (Genesis 7) and where it returned (Genesis 8), namely, earthly sources.

The quantity of water on, in, and around our planet comes nowhere near the amount required for global inundation.

According to Genesis 7.11-12, the floodwaters came from "the springs of the great deep" and "the floodgates of the heavens." The respective Hebrew phrases are ma'yenoth tehom rabah and 'aruboth hashamayim. These terms refer to subterranean reservoirs, today called aquifers, and to heavy rain clouds.

Genesis 8 gives us the most significant evidence for a universal (with respect to man and his animals and lands), but not global, flood. The four different Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 8.1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters indicate that these waters returned to their original sources. In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth. Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the Genesis flood could not have been global.

To describe the receding of the floodwaters, the writer employs four different Hebrew words: shakak, shub, kaser, and qalal, which mean, respectively, "subsided or abated"; "returned to its original place or condition"; "diminished or lessened"; and "lowered or flowed away." These verbs indicate that the floodwaters returned to the places from which they came, the aquifers and the clouds.

Genesis 8.1 describes how God removed the floodwaters from the land: He sent a wind. This removal technique perfectly suits the requirements of water removal from a gigantic flat plain such as Mesopotamia.



What does the New Testament tell us about the flood?

There is an interesting passage from 2 Peter that gives some insight into the nature of the flood:

For this is hidden from them by their willing it so, that heavens were of old, and earth by water, and through water, having subsisted by the Word of God, through which the world which then was, being flooded by water, perished. (2 Peter 3.5-6)

Peter, instead of just telling us that the entire planet was flooded, qualifies the verse by telling us that the "world which then was" was flooded with water.

What was different about the world "at that time" compared to the world of today?

At the time of the flood, all humans were in the same geographic location (the people of the world were not scattered over the earth until Genesis 11).

Therefore, the "world which then was" was confined to the Mesopotamian plain. There would be no reason to qualify the verse if the flood were global in extent.

ref: RTB

 

[Meow Mix]

Now that you've responded to that other person, can you answer my questions please? I'm still interested in your explanation for them:

1) If the flood was local, why was an ark needed at all -- or the gathering of animals?

2) Why wasn't noah able to find land in 40 days/nights if the flood was local, such that even a bird couldn't find dry land?

3) What does the promise of the rainbow mean if not to flood the earth again? Clearly it can't be a promise that God won't flood locally, so what is it? Is God a liar or what?

 

[Bowman]

Now that you've responded to that other person, can you answer my questions please? I'm still interested in your explanation for them:

1) If the flood was local, why was an ark needed at all -- or the gathering of animals?

The Flood, the Ark and the descriptions thereof represent a deeper symbolism to the actual said events.

There is a pattern to the structure of the Ark, and the loading of the animals into it.

Since it was God’s will that all humanity, except Noah and seven family members, be destroyed, there was a need to symbolize the rescue of humanity with the animals with which the sacrifices were made at the time.

2) Why wasn't noah able to find land in 40 days/nights if the flood was local, such that even a bird couldn't find dry land?

This goes back to the ancient literary technique of chiasm which you were supposed to study.

The flood story is written in this pattern with the number 40 as part of the number pattern.

From your wiki…

Seven days waiting to enter Ark (7:4)
Second mention of seven days waiting (7:10)
40 days (7:13,17)
150 days (7:24)
God remembers Noah (8:1)
150 days (8:3)
40 days (8:6)
Seven days waiting for dove (8:10)
Second seven days waiting for dove (8:12)

3) What does the promise of the rainbow mean if not to flood the earth again? Clearly it can't be a promise that God won't flood locally, so what is it? Is God a liar or what?

The Bow is a vow to never again destroy mankind in this manner.

 

[David M]

Can you reliably claim it was indeed a "local" flood, and not the world inundating flood your bible claims several times over?

I can reliably establish that of the 2 possible translations of the hebrew 1 leads to an impossibility as there was no worldwide flood in the period when hominids (let alone humans) have been around while the other leads to a description of events that have happened in that region of the world.

Remember that at the end of the last ice age there were some significant sea level rises and at least one major flood while the black sea was forming. Those are not so far back as to make it impossible for an oral tradition to have survived.

So which translation of a word is most likely to be the right choice, the ludicrous one or the one that could relate back to an actual event?

 

[Meow Mix]

The Flood, the Ark and the descriptions thereof represent a deeper symbolism to the actual said events.

There is a pattern to the structure of the Ark, and the loading of the animals into it.

Since it was God’s will that all humanity, except Noah and seven family members, be destroyed, there was a need to symbolize the rescue of humanity with the animals with which the sacrifices were made at the time.

So... how can we tell when the Bible is telling a historical event and when it's just making stuff up like crazy to "symbolize" something?

This goes back to the ancient literary technique of chiasm which you were supposed to study.

The flood story is written in this pattern with the number 40 as part of the number pattern.

So does this mean that it's all nebulous poetic lies, or was he really unable to get anywhere in 40 days?

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make this flood into a local thing... I mean if you don't turn it into a local thing then we have part of a holy book that's demonstrably false (e.g. global flood mere thousands of years ago), so I can see the great need to do it...

But if you do turn it into a local flood in interpretation then the whole book becomes a huge question mark because you're basically saying that it could fly into poetic lies at any second while being completely unclear about what's a lie and what isn't and being clearly confusing enough that nearly ALL humans have interpreted it wrong for thousands of years -- which seriously begs the question of why an omniscient being would have written the thing in such a goofy way; and throws the whole rest of the thing into question.

The Bow is a vow to never again destroy mankind in this manner.

But if the original flood just flooded Mesopotamia it didn't destroy mankind, mankind would have been quite content and alive in Africa during this event because mankind was in Africa before the Middle East.

So either way this flood story is false, even if you jump through the mental hoops to turn it into a local story because it wouldn't destroy ALL mankind. If you say 'well yeah, it just destroyed mankind in mesopotamia' then we're back to the problem of the rainbow: if God promised not to kill "part" of mankind with floods anymore, then why are there still floods that do so? Either way something reeks of falseness about Genesis.

I think turning it into a local story does more harm than good because seriously... any book that flies into telling lies on a whim is not a very trustworthy book.

 

[Meow Mix]

I can reliably establish that of the 2 possible translations of the hebrew 1 leads to an impossibility as there was no worldwide flood in the period when hominids (let alone humans) have been around while the other leads to a description of events that have happened in that region of the world.

Remember that at the end of the last ice age there were some significant sea level rises and at least one major flood while the black sea was forming. Those are not so far back as to make it impossible for an oral tradition to have survived.

So which translation of a word is most likely to be the right choice, the ludicrous one or the one that could relate back to an actual event?

Then there's the problem of Noah actually building an ark, actually failing to find land in 40 days, and God making the rainbow promise.

Either those are literally true or they're poetic lies. Is the Bible all true or is it partly poetic lies?

If part of it is poetic lies, how can you tell when it's being true and when it's being fiction since it gives no indication between the two?

 

[David M]

Then there's the problem of Noah actually building an ark, actually failing to find land in 40 days, and God making the rainbow promise.

Either those are literally true or they're poetic lies. Is the Bible all true or is it partly poetic lies?

If part of it is poetic lies, how can you tell when it's being true and when it's being fiction since it gives no indication between the two?

What, you think that myths don't get exagerrated over time? Especially when they are being co-opted from earlier myths.

Does the existence of Troy make all of the Illiad true or does it make it a myth based on something that probably did happen?

 

[gnostic]

Noah entered the ark on the 17th day of 2nd month, when the rain began.

It supposed rain for 40 days and nights, so about 10 days over a month.

Then it mention 150 days (Genesis 7:24, this is about 5 months, which mean it included the 40 days) that the earth was flooded for, before the water began to recede (Genesis 8:3).

On the 17th day of the 7 months (Genesis 8:4, precisely 5 months after boarded the ark), the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat.

Lastly, Noah didn't come out of the ark until the following year, when the earth was dried, on the 27th day of the 2nd month. That's a year and 10 day he has been in the ark.

If the ark landed on the mountain 5 month later, then why did he stayed in the ark over a year had passed?

Surely, he could have come out of the ark 3 or 4 months earlier than that.

 

[AxisMundi]

I can reliably establish that of the 2 possible translations of the hebrew 1 leads to an impossibility as there was no worldwide flood in the period when hominids (let alone humans) have been around while the other leads to a description of events that have happened in that region of the world.

Remember that at the end of the last ice age there were some significant sea level rises and at least one major flood while the black sea was forming. Those are not so far back as to make it impossible for an oral tradition to have survived.

So which translation of a word is most likely to be the right choice, the ludicrous one or the one that could relate back to an actual event?

Many words, neighbor, and one answer my question.

Your scripture states a world inundating flood repeatedly, and such has been the general belief of the Abrahamics since before Abraham set pen to paper.

 

[AxisMundi]

Like most other Genesis stories, the flood account is found in more places than just Genesis, brother.

Psalm 104 directly eliminates any possibility of a global flood.

Psalm 104 describes the creation of the earth in the same order as that seen in Genesis 1 (with added detail).

The verse that eliminates a global flood follows:

He founded the earth on its foundations; it shall not be shaken forever and ever.
You have covered the deep as with a robe; the waters stood above the mountains.
From Your rebuke, they flee; from the sound of Your thunder, they hurry away.
They go up the mountains; they go down the valleys to the place which You
founded for them. You have set a boundary that they may
not pass over; they shall not return to cover the
earth. (Psalm 104.5-9)


Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local.


Biblical clues to the geographical limits on human habitation can be found in the place-names Genesis mentions or does not mention.

In Genesis 1-9 the text mentions place-names only in the environs of Mesopotamia.

From Genesis 10 onward, we encounter references (by name or direction) to places beyond Mesopotamia, in fact, to places covering much of the Eastern hemisphere.

This sudden shift from narrow to wider geographical range after Genesis 10 strongly suggests that until the time of the Flood, human beings and their animals remained in and around Mesopotamia. Therefore, to fulfill His purpose in sending the deluge, God would need to flood only the Mesopotamian plain and perhaps some adjacent territories.

Few readers seem to catch the significance of statements about the source of the floodwater. In one respect the text itself rules out the global Flood interpretation by telling us where the water came from (Genesis 7) and where it returned (Genesis 8), namely, earthly sources.

The quantity of water on, in, and around our planet comes nowhere near the amount required for global inundation.

According to Genesis 7.11-12, the floodwaters came from "the springs of the great deep" and "the floodgates of the heavens." The respective Hebrew phrases are ma'yenoth tehom rabah and 'aruboth hashamayim. These terms refer to subterranean reservoirs, today called aquifers, and to heavy rain clouds.

Genesis 8 gives us the most significant evidence for a universal (with respect to man and his animals and lands), but not global, flood. The four different Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 8.1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters indicate that these waters returned to their original sources. In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth. Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the Genesis flood could not have been global.

To describe the receding of the floodwaters, the writer employs four different Hebrew words: shakak, shub, kaser, and qalal, which mean, respectively, "subsided or abated"; "returned to its original place or condition"; "diminished or lessened"; and "lowered or flowed away." These verbs indicate that the floodwaters returned to the places from which they came, the aquifers and the clouds.

Genesis 8.1 describes how God removed the floodwaters from the land: He sent a wind. This removal technique perfectly suits the requirements of water removal from a gigantic flat plain such as Mesopotamia.



What does the New Testament tell us about the flood?

There is an interesting passage from 2 Peter that gives some insight into the nature of the flood:

For this is hidden from them by their willing it so, that heavens were of old, and earth by water, and through water, having subsisted by the Word of God, through which the world which then was, being flooded by water, perished. (2 Peter 3.5-6)

Peter, instead of just telling us that the entire planet was flooded, qualifies the verse by telling us that the "world which then was" was flooded with water.

What was different about the world "at that time" compared to the world of today?

At the time of the flood, all humans were in the same geographic location (the people of the world were not scattered over the earth until Genesis 11).

Therefore, the "world which then was" was confined to the Mesopotamian plain. There would be no reason to qualify the verse if the flood were global in extent.

ref: RTB

By the Gods, you get more laughable each time you post.

"Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local." Contradict yourself much? Second sentance in your bible quote proves you quite wrong as well.

Biblical clues as to the limits of human habitation? Human beings have been in Asia and Australia for over fourty thousand years, and int he Americas for over tweny thousand. When your bible was written, then entire globe was inhabitated. "Place names" aren't mentnioned nor other peoples referenced merely becasue the writers of your scriptures didn;t knwo any better.

Genesis 7:11-12 merely shows the complete ignorance ancient people had concerning hydrology and meteorology. There simply is not enough water in the earth, on the earth, or above the earth for a world inundating flood. Nor can a "local flood" cover the mountain ranges of the ME without seriously effecting a wide range of people and geographical area. Not only is there a complete lack of archaeological evidence for a year long flood of such magnitude, no other people mention such an occurance.

And I litterally LOLed at your wind reference. Feel free to come uyp with a fantasy to explian 1. what was holding the water back in the first place. 2. Where did your wind push the water to? 3. Why there are no mentions from the multitudes of people outside your "flood zone"?

 

[Meow Mix]

What, you think that myths don't get exagerrated over time? Especially when they are being co-opted from earlier myths.

Does the existence of Troy make all of the Illiad true or does it make it a myth based on something that probably did happen?

Oh I don't doubt that there have been massive floods in the history of human existence.

What I do doubt is the Bible as divinely inspired whatsoever, especially with such farces in it.

If you agree that the Bible contains faux stories, do you mind if I ask why you are a Christian? I suppose there's more to being Christian than the Bible, but Christianity does draw its ontology from the Bible and its suppositions after all.

 

[Bowman]

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to make this flood into a local thing... I mean if you don't turn it into a local thing then we have part of a holy book that's demonstrably false (e.g. global flood mere thousands of years ago), so I can see the great need to do it...

That the flood was local can easily be determined by simple scriptural exegesis, sister.

Numerous scriptural examples have already been provided.

However, you can't be bothered with scriptural study.

You have nothing.

 

[Bowman]

By the Gods, you get more laughable each time you post.

There is only one God, brother...and you don't know Him.

"Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local." Contradict yourself much? Second sentance in your bible quote proves you quite wrong as well.

Psalm 104 parallels Genesis 1, brother.

Both creation accounts maintain that water covered the entire surface of planet earth early in its development. Same is told to us by modern science.

This was the only time in which water covered the entire global earth.

The later flood did not.

Biblical clues as to the limits of human habitation? Human beings have been in Asia and Australia for over fourty thousand years, and int he Americas for over tweny thousand. When your bible was written, then entire globe was inhabitated. "Place names" aren't mentnioned nor other peoples referenced merely becasue the writers of your scriptures didn;t knwo any better.

How old do you think humanity is, brother?

Genesis 7:11-12 merely shows the complete ignorance ancient people had concerning hydrology and meteorology. There simply is not enough water in the earth, on the earth, or above the earth for a world inundating flood. Nor can a "local flood" cover the mountain ranges of the ME without seriously effecting a wide range of people and geographical area. Not only is there a complete lack of archaeological evidence for a year long flood of such magnitude, no other people mention such an occurance.

Reference the scriptures...

And I litterally LOLed at your wind reference. Feel free to come uyp with a fantasy to explian 1. what was holding the water back in the first place.

The water emanated from earthly and atmospheric sources, and they went back to these same sources, brother.

Read the text...

2. Where did your wind push the water to?

Evaporation and natural drainage.

3. Why there are no mentions from the multitudes of people outside your "flood zone"?

There were no people outside of the flood zone, brother.

You don't need a global flood if mankind is concentrated in one location.

 

[Meow Mix]

That the flood was local can easily be determined by simple scriptural exegesis, sister.

Numerous scriptural examples have already been provided.

However, you can't be bothered with scriptural study.

You have nothing.

But you haven't answered why Noah needed an ark if the flood was local.

You haven't answered why Noah couldn't find land within 40 days if the flood was local.

You just pointed out that they were numerical characteristics of the story. Well that's all well and great, but as I asked -- how, then, if your holy book flies into telling embellished lies at the drop of a pin without warning, can you trust any of it? How do you distinguish the lies from the truth, if you say it's indeed a lie that Noah built an ark or couldn't find land in 40 days?

Your position is absurd as it stands, you haven't done practically anything to really defend it. Can't you see that?

You don't need a global flood if mankind is concentrated in one location.

If you're asserting that the Bible says mankind was concentrated in Mesopotamia then your interpretation is already proven false, considering humans were hanging out in at least Africa no matter what time period you assert the flood happened.

Even if you say "Well the flood just killed all the Biblically important people" then you still haven't answered why God made a promise with a rainbow.

-You can't assert that the rainbow is a promise not to kill people with a local flood, since local floods happen all the time

-You can't assert that the rainbow is a promise not to kill all mankind with a flood, since if you assert the "local flood" was in Mesopotamia then it most certainly wouldn't have killed all mankind.

Either way, the literal interpretation is falsified and even your contorted interpretation is falsified. How are you going to resolve these issues?

Also, consider the fact that humans have interpreted the flood story "wrong" (according to you) since practically the beginning of Judaism/Christianity. Are you saying that God doesn't care enough about us knowing the truth that He'd inspire a book that nobody can understand, a book that switches between truth and poetic lies faster than a fat kid goes down on a seesaw? Why would God do such a thing?

 

[painted wolf]

Not to mention that the Bible mentions that the mountains were covered.... that can't happen in a local flood. (not unless someone has some very pathetic mountains)

Now if it was a local event that was exaggerated over the generations or an allegorical tale meant to impart an important cultural lesson... then you may be onto something.

wa:do

 

[AxisMundi]

There is only one God, brother...and you don't know Him.

Psalm 104 parallels Genesis 1, brother.

Both creation accounts maintain that water covered the entire surface of planet earth early in its development. Same is told to us by modern science.

This was the only time in which water covered the entire global earth.

The later flood did not.

How old do you think humanity is, brother?

Reference the scriptures...

The water emanated from earthly and atmospheric sources, and they went back to these same sources, brother.

Read the text...

Evaporation and natural drainage.

There were no people outside of the flood zone, brother.

You don't need a global flood if mankind is concentrated in one location.

1. I'm not your brother.

2. There are over two thousand deities for this planet, yours is one of them. Sorry, but the archaeolgical anda rchival record proves this.

3. I have asked repeatedly for you to provide links to scientific sources stating that...
a. There is enough water on the planet to inundate the surface.
b. That the planet was covered with water before land appeared.
You have merely replied with more theospam and midirections.

4. Modern humans exceed the one hundred thousand year mark.

I await your scientific citations.

 

[AxisMundi]

Not to mention that the Bible mentions that the mountains were covered.... that can't happen in a local flood. (not unless someone has some very pathetic mountains)

Now if it was a local event that was exaggerated over the generations or an allegorical tale meant to impart an important cultural lesson... then you may be onto something.

wa:do

Already covered that point, neighbor, which was immediatly ignored by Bowman.

The level of pure intellectual dishonesty from that poster never fails to amaze.

 

[Bowman]

But you haven't answered why Noah needed an ark if the flood was local.

You haven't answered why Noah couldn't find land within 40 days if the flood was local.

You just pointed out that they were numerical characteristics of the story. Well that's all well and great, but as I asked -- how, then, if your holy book flies into telling embellished lies at the drop of a pin without warning, can you trust any of it? How do you distinguish the lies from the truth, if you say it's indeed a lie that Noah built an ark or couldn't find land in 40 days?

Your position is absurd as it stands, you haven't done practically anything to really defend it. Can't you see that?

My position is entirely verifiable via Biblical scripture, sister.

However, you are unable (or unwilling, or both) to even so much as address the Hebrew.

Until you can do this, and unload that chip from your shoulder, you have an argument from silence.

If you're asserting that the Bible says mankind was concentrated in Mesopotamia then your interpretation is already proven false, considering humans were hanging out in at least Africa no matter what time period you assert the flood happened.

Not exactly.

The Biblical prediction of humanity emanating from one man and one woman in the span of thousands of years has already been confirmed by recent science.

This stands in stark contrast to naturalists who said that we came from neandertals in an near endless stream of evolution from simple life forms to complex - all of which simply does not stand up to modern science.

Thus, as science refines itself, I would predict that our two distance parents will likewise be found to have emanated from the Meso Plain.

Even if you say "Well the flood just killed all the Biblically important people" then you still haven't answered why God made a promise with a rainbow.

If all humanity was wiped-out, as stated, then the covenant makes perfect sense.

-You can't assert that the rainbow is a promise not to kill people with a local flood, since local floods happen all the time

You failed to even read my detailed reply.

-You can't assert that the rainbow is a promise not to kill all mankind with a flood, since if you assert the "local flood" was in Mesopotamia then it most certainly wouldn't have killed all mankind.

Why?

Either way, the literal interpretation is falsified and even your contorted interpretation is falsified. How are you going to resolve these issues?

Since you don't study Hebrew, your assertion is meritless.

Also, consider the fact that humans have interpreted the flood story "wrong" (according to you) since practically the beginning of Judaism/Christianity. Are you saying that God doesn't care enough about us knowing the truth that He'd inspire a book that nobody can understand, a book that switches between truth and poetic lies faster than a fat kid goes down on a seesaw? Why would God do such a thing?

That onus is firmly upon you, sister...start googling.....again...