From your post "I agree with the YEC reading on this point: the flood of Gen. 6–9 is a global/universal flood:, perhaps you should look at
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html
titled The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local
Also, one of your objections is that there is no evidence of a 4,000 years ago, or a 10,000 years ago, flood.
The scientific evidence of Y-chromasonal Moses says that it happened 65,000 years ago at the very least, possibly long before that due to their long lifespans back then.
Both the idea of a global flood, which the bible actually denies, and the idea of one only that short a time ago, are straw man arguments. basically, you say that the bible says x, when the bible does not say x, then you say that it is wrong factually, and only "true" "mythically", because x is false factually. However, since the bible does not say x, who cares if x is wrong?
And about Moses, did Moses write Genesis? He must certainly have written the lions share of it, since, as I have already pointed out, some of it accuratly describes events that heppened before any humans ever existed. That cannot have been passed down by folklore, thus, the most likely candidate is Moses, who talked with God extensively in his tent on numerous occasions.
And what did Jesus say about Moses?
Mat 17:3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
The apostles saw Moses with their eyes, conclusion, there was a Moses, and he was so important that he could meet with Jesus himself. he must have done something to be that important, what do you suppose it was?
John 7:19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?"
John 7:22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath.
Mat 19:8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
Mark 1:44 "See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them."
Mark 7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
John 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
Here Jesus (and an apostle) acknowledges that it was Moses himself who gave the law, and that the patriarchs existed as real people who gave circumcision.
Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
John 5:45 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.
John 5:46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
John 5:47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
Acts 3:22 For Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.
Jesus here acknowledges that Moses gave more than just the law, he also gave prophecy concerning Jesus.
John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,
Here Jesus also says that the factual accounts written in Genesis about what Moses did are true.
Conclusion, those parts where you say that Moses did not write most of Genesis are shown largly false (except for a bit near the end, where Moses dies). The fact that many "biblical scholars" might agree to some other idea, which has not a shred of physical evidence to back it up, means nothing. When they actually have some hard archeological evidence to back it up, then they can talk, till then, it is just hot air. These are the same people who try to knock down the new testiment as well with there various imaginary documents with a letter attatched to them, always with the same problem, that not even one single scrap of evidence shows that such a document ever existed. When they try it with the new testiment, they run into the huge amount of letters people wrote with new testiment quotes in them in the first century, thus showing that it was not made up later as they say. They and their "textual critisism" (making stuff up without a shred of actual hard archeological evidence) has been caught in a lie before, why should I believe them again?
"since the narrative is firmly rooted in the cosmology and geography of the ancient near East (e.g. reference to the floodgates of heaven and fountains of the deep—physical barriers that kept the waters above and the waters below from overcoming the dry land), we should not apply this language to our own picture of the planet" You are right, it certainly does not apply to OUR picture of the planet. It DOES, however, apply to a picture of the planet in it's early planetery formation, which IS what genesis was talking about, right??. When it has just come together from infalling asteroids, moonlets, and COMETS, a lot of the water has been trapped underground under the next infalling rock that comes along. All those smashing rocks create a lot of heat, result, steam, and the force of the steam causes the water to gush out. This is described here Job 38:8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb. See that, "burst forth", sound like anything I just described? I have already described how water, right now, is held above your head without needing any "physical barrier". the ancient Hebrews would not know that, but we do, we do not need to repeat their error. Since BOTH of these are show to be factually true, scientifically true, there is no need for "the cosmology and geography of the ancient near East".
Sumerians cubits are irrelevent, there were no Sumerians, or a Sumeria, at least 65,000 years ago or probably long before that. Pitch to calk the boat could be present whatever time frame it was, the area most likely (see my previous post) is in the area where such things occur (just because there was no Sumeria doesn't mean it didn't happen near where Sumneria would eventually be much leter). Since the bible stated it was a local flood, one only needs room for local animals, specifically, take the animals God brings to the ark, and only those."In short, I don't think the language of Genesis (7 in particular) requires us to think that the flood was any more than 30–50 ft (depth of a catastrophic, but localized flood on the Mesopotamian valley)." See my earlier post showing this "http://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-c ... -gulf.html
Lost Civilization May Have Existed Beneath the Persian Gulf. the mesopotamian valley is another straw man argument, the depth here is hundreds of feet, not 30. The description of the location of Eden, and the rivers described, makes this a much more likely place that mesopotania (which is really based of a 4,000 year ago timeline anyway, which the genetic data denies). Note that with that being the timeframe, the geology 65,000+ years ago, especially the rivers, could be very much different than today, made especially true by the ice age and much lower sea levels. You then go into numerology, numerology, why would God care about putting numerology here and then not bothering to tell anyone anything about it? That is just making stuff up. As for 40 days and nights of rain, and many more days of rising waters, well, when an ice age ends, and you are on the low ground that is being flooded, it will take a while for you to arrive at any actual ground that is now high enough for you to land on, since the former ground is now uinder the sea level. You won't see any mountains sticking up in all that rain, and you started down in what is now the bed of the persian gulf and so you won't see many mountains from down there (till you get washed to one).
After the flood, people would naturally be a bit more leary of low places. Also, they would have more time to multipy before any next ending of any ice ages, in fact, tens of thousands of years, since one just ended, they would have to wait for another one to start, and then end. Put those together and we see that there is no possibility that all the people will be whiped out again since by the next time such a thing is even possible, there are simply too many people spread out too far, and many on ground too high for that kind of flood to reach anyway. If they had not moved east of Eden as they did, and has settled on higher ground anyway, this wound't have happened. There is also a promise that the climactic disaster would not again happen, at least not to all mankind, the 40 days of rain may have been from some local anomely, like say vulcanism or a solar change or some such that caused such rain in that specific low lyimg area.
"I've taken out only the portions that are hypothesized to be from one of the authors (J, according to Friedman, 1997)" uxcuse me, authors, "J"?? Show me JUST ONE copy of this J document, come on, JUST ONE. NAME THE AUTHOR. The J document is FICTION. There is not the slightest actual evidence that it ever existed. Show me one and you can talk J document, till then, I will treat it as pure fiction. As for taken out portions, perhaps you should check out the warning given in the last verses of the last book of the bible against taking out anything from the bible Rev 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Perhaps you should think again about taking out any part of this just because of some purely fictitional "J document".
Well, I have read all of it. My conclusion, my original opinion stands, Noah is not "myth", "epic", or "literature". You say all the bible is "literature", I assue you have fallen, quite heavily, into the "higher critisism" camp", which supports this idea based only one their preconcieved notions that invents imaginary J documents without the slightest actual evidence. I see a lack of scientific knowledge here (such as planetery formation and clouds), I see several logical fallicies of several kinds. I see you making conclusions based off of absolutly no evidence at all (such as "J documents"), while ignoring other evidence (such as Y-chormasonal Adam (actually Noah) and mitochondrial Eve).
I suggest that you rethink your position, since there IS actual physical and scientific evidence,and thus your whole idea, that parts of the bible are not scientifically factual, is false and therefore uneeded.