Noah's Ark

[J-Mann]

I'm sure that something happened -- there are a great many flood myths throughout historical cultures, such as the Gilgamesh Epic of the great deluge.  This event was probably big enough to affect many cultures throughout the Mesopotamian region, and a flood that devastated the fertile crescent is not out of the question.  So far as Western writing is concerned, that would have been "the world" at the time that we traditionally date Noah as living in, so the stories are probably not out of line calling it a worldwide flood.

In terms of Noah, I think you detractors are trying to take the story a little too seriously.  In the Bible, it effectively makes a point (as someone earlier pointed out that parables do), and perhaps all it amounted to in reality was a farmer gathering his livestock (maybe two of each so as to start new herds, flocks, etc.) and family into a hastily built boat in order to escape a flood, which subsequently wiped out his villiage (and possibly all of the surrounding villiages and/or most of Mesopotamia). 

When the floodwaters receded, the family started afresh, fully vindicated by a powerful God who wiped out all other sinners.  The ancients interpreting events in that way is not out of the ordinary, nor is it surprising that other similar stories could have come from similar survivors around the region in the form of different flood epics.  That such powerful tales survived via oral tradition is hardly novel.

A literal Biblical interpretation is quite unlikely, given that there are up to 1.75 million distinct species (and likely many more back then).  You all make good points -- a true interpretation of the Noah's Ark story doesn't take into account the genetic diversity required to restart populations or the farming methods that would be needed to supply such a society (or the one that apparently sprang from the remnants of Noah's family).

I've seen the evidence for archaeological discoveries, and as far as I've seen or heard, the evidence is sketchy -- both sides make claims for and against.  This, I believe is a picture of the boat or boat-shaped structure that Richius is referring to.  It's doesn't exactly scream "ARK" to me, but I'm sure there's more research to be done.

And afleitch -- you said it: thank God I'm Catholic and can appreciate the story and accept that God was behind a flood without taking everything in the Bible so damn literally.  The folks 6000 years ago just didn't have the capacity to describe things literally, nor did they have writing methods to write it all down till much later.  A lot gets flubbed up in oral tradition.

[J-Mann]

Perhaps the end of the Ice Age, and the related rise in sea-levels, led to the rise of these legends?

Very interesting hypothesis.

[J-Mann]

In terms of Noah, I think you detractors are trying to take the story a little too seriously.

It would be hard to debate with those who take it seriously if you didn't take it seriously in your rebuttals.

Haha...touché.

[J-Mann]

Ooops,  almost forgot one of the most important parallels:

Since Noah’s salvation through water symbolizes baptism, and since baptism is a baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ, Noah’s entry into and exit out of (after the flood) the ark, makes the ark symbolic of a COFFIN and entry into and out of it is symbolic of death and resurrection.

A coffin?  That's a stretch, considering the ancients didn't use them, at least in the modern sense that you're implying.

Jmfcst, I don't understand one thing -- people of great faith are usually quite adept at reconciling faith and science.  While you don't have to readily accept evolution now, you've got to admit that science itself has disproven and trumped a lot of other once-common beliefs, like that of a geocentric universe.  I doubt anyone can still make a good case for that, or for disbelieving the existence of, say, gravity.

Religion, jmfcst, has only managed to survive because it adapts.  That's not to say that God doesn't exist or the underlying principles of religious teachings are untrue -- I happen to believe they're very true.  But I also recognize that a Christianity as it was in the 15th century would be unable to exist today (save for a few radicals).  Do you honestly think that a Christianity that denies progressive science can continue to exist and grow?

There's nothing wrong with reconciling faith and science.  St. Albert is an ancient example of early attempts to do so.  How, exactly, are the stories of the Old Testament cheapened if they're not literal?  Do the lessons not still apply or the stories not still ring true?