> So presumably this means most humans and animals were not killed by the flood.

There is no way to determine the population of the earth at the time of the flood, particularly since we don't even know when it happened. No time referents are given. So I can't say whether or not most or a minority of life was affected.

> And this would mean it wouldn't really matter whether Noah took two of each animal on the ark.

There was a still a need to preserve the life forms of the region where the flood would take place. Taking two allows life to perpetuate when it's over, even if those life forms exist elsewhere on the planet. Gn. 6.20 says that he was to bring "two of every kind...to be kept alive." Not "maintain life," but "stay alive." It's very possible that others of those species existed elsewhere, but Noah was to keep them alive to repopulate the immediate area.

> These are all elements of the story that you are saying didn't happen.

No, these things did happen. I believe the elements of the Bible story are historical.

> what do you think the author's source material was?

The ancient world was hearing-dominant, not a textually-dominant culture. Stories were carefully passed from generation to generation by authority figures in the community. It was significant in communities to transfer the history and beliefs of the clan. There is no way to trace back to know the origin of this story, but since it shows up in several cultures of the ancient Near East, I have reason to believe it had a historical referent, and was translated by the different cultures and faith systems into a story explaining their theological view of the event.

> I believe that all of the elements of the Bible story are historical.

You've already said it wasn't a global flood. So presumably this means most humans and animals were not killed by the flood. And this would mean it wouldn't really matter whether Noah took two of each animal on the ark. These are all elements of the story that you are saying didn't happen.

If you think it was history being written, what do you think the author's source material was?

I believe that all of the elements of the Bible story are historical. And while the other accounts (Gilgamesh, Atrahasis) refer to the same geological event, their writing about it is from a theological vantage point, not a historical one. The author of Genesis wrote to represent a particular reality associated with a geological event to reveal the theological import of that event. The Mesopotamians, on the other hand (as quoted from Jean-Jacques Glassner), had a different teleology at play: "The Mesopotamian had no progression of historical as we understanding it today, nor its methods or perspective. As they say it, the problem was not critical assessment of sources, nor was the question, fundamentally, knowing how and in what causal sequences events considered unique had occurred. the primary task was to choose, according to a definite focus of interest, among the carefully collected data from the past events, certain facts that, from that point of view, had acquired universal relevance and significance." As I mentioned, they were writing the ideological perspective of the event, while the Biblical author was writing the theological roots behind a historical incident. Mythography is less interested in portraying the event than they are trying to show how the world works. The writer of Genesis was interested in portraying the event, but explicating the divine reason, causation, method, and consequence.

What elements of the bible story do you think are historical? Because if you believe other myths refer to the same event you must take the position that many aspects of the bible story are not historical.

> if you are trying connote a judgment that is more complete than it actually was then it would be deceptive.

I understand what you mean, but I obviously see it differently. One of my ancestors was stationed in Nagasaki after WWII, and he took some photographs. I've seen the photographs, and my comment would easily be, "Everything was rubble. The city was leveled and decimated. Incredible." Now, if you really study the picture, amazingly there were still some structures standing. Some things actually survived the blast. Am I guilty for trying to connote a judgment (explosion) that it more compete than it actually was? Have I been deceptive? I don't think so. The destruction was complete. Not totally absolutely unconditionally, but in reality yes.

> That does not contradict my claim

I was never trying to assert (and I think I said it explicitly) that Glenn Morton's proposal was the biblical flood, nor was I trying to claim that the flooding of the Black Sea was it either. All I was trying to do was to establish the credibility of the possibility of floods in that area that were continental in scope. If it happened twice (and there's evidence of it), then it could possibly have happened a third time. That's all I'm contending. To me it answers the question, "Is it reasonable to believe that such a thing as the biblical flood actually happened?" To me the answer is, "It could easily be reasonable."

> There are lots of myths

There is a vast difference between historiography and mythography. Walton and Sandy quote: "Mythography is less interested in portraying events than in rendering the world meaningful through addressing how the world works and how it got that way. Though often adopting a narrative structure by recounting events, it is generally not interested in those events as events that can be connected with the human world. yet if we could ask mythographers whether they believe those events were real, they would likely be baffled by the question. Given what they know of the gods, and given what they know and think about the current shape of the world, this literature provides the best explanation they have to offer—the one most consistent with their beliefs and perspectives. It is their core reality." In that sense mythography is very different from historiography, pertaining to different planes of reality. Here's maybe a way to understand it: mythography is about ideology, and historiography is about representing events in the human realm. I would contend that the flood story of Genesis 6-8 was written as history, not myth. Its intent is to communicate a human event, not a divine ideology.

> it can also connote the completeness of the judgment

But if you are trying connote a judgment that is more complete than it actually was then it would be deceptive. So for whatever reason the writer of the text wound up being deceptive about geography. I am assuming it was through ignorance because the writer didn't know such a flood was impossible.

And it doesn't really matter whether it was all mountains were underwater or just covered in some other sense. It goes beyond geography to include biology, genetics, physics, and so on. Things that the writers were not aware of because their worldview was so limited, as you have pointed out already.

?a theory proposed by Glenn Morton

That does not contradict my claim that a flood caused by rain could ever cover mountains with water in a local area. His theory involves a huge inflow of ocean water. It also couldn't be the flood referred to in the bible if he's saying it happened 5.5 million years ago.

> There's another possibility at least for our understanding

This possibility would not accord with the bible story in terms of location or the impact it would have on human and animal life.

>Except that this story is told in many separate cultures.

There are lots of myths that different cultures either borrow from each other or come up with independantly. Why is this one more believable? I would say to me it is less believable because there would be evidence if it had happened. Wheras something like dying and rising god myths are also common, but would not be expected to leave any evidence behind.

No. The flood was a historical event, and it really happened, and the animals were actually assembled (Gn. 7.8-9 implies that God brought them to the ark). The whole thing was historical, but the event was symbolic also. It symbolizes salvation from sin and death, baptism, and death and resurrection. It symbolizes God's ability to preserve life in the midst of death, and God's judgment on sin.

So the flood is practical and realistic, but the gathering of animals was just a symbolic action?

> So the writer of Genesis could have said

You're right. It could have been expressed in multiple ways, but I don't fault the writer to choosing what he did. "All" not only denotes the scope of the physical flood for the intended population, but it can also connote the completeness of the judgment. If he had said something like "as far as the eye could see" (I know it was an off-the-top-of-the-head suggestion) it might be assumed that the judgment was less than accomplished.

Since you mentioned it, "covered" (Gn. 7.19 et al) is an interesting word. The Hebrew word (root *ksh*) that is used here is a word of a wide variety of meanings.

- A people so vast they "cover" the land (Num. 22.11)
- Weeds "covering" the land (Prov. 24.31)
- Clothing "covering" someone (1 Ki. 1.1)
- Something "covered" in the sense of being overshadowed (2 Chr. 5.8; Ps. 147.8)

But what about "covered" with water?
- Job 38.34; Jer. 46.8; Mal. 2.13 all use the word FIGURATIVELY

If Gen. 7.19 is taken the same way, it suggests that the mountains were "drenched" with water, or coursing with flash floods, but it doesn't demand they were totally submerged.

But, you may say, Gen. 7.20 says "covered the mountains to a depth of more than 20 feet." The Hebrew word is "from above": 15 cubits from above rose the waters, and the mountains were covered. It's not clear at all whether the peaks were covered. The word can mean "above", "upward", or "upstream". If this were the case, it could suggest that the water reached 20' upward from the plain, covering at least some part of the mountains.

> This is why assumed you had a high level of certainty

I do have a high level of certainty. I didn't give you all my reasons, because you don't want to read several pages of text.

> bible as a reliable source for flood information even though the bible implies a global flood

The English translation implies a global flood, and here is a translation issue: Do we translate the words exactly as they are ("all," "covered") or do we translate them with some kind of interpretation on them? It's a very tough call.

> I don't think it is possible for rain to cause even a local area to flood to the point that mountains are covered. At least it has never happened in recorded history.

In a theory proposed by Glenn Morton, a variety of geological data show that until 5.5 million years ago the Mediterranean was not a sea at all. Morton’s evidence suggests a fairly sudden collapse, causing a break more than 3000 feet deep and 15 miles wide, filling the Mediterranean Basin in less than 9 months. The Straight of Gibraltar, which was once a solid dam holding back the Atlantic Ocean, was broken, and the ocean water inundated the entire continental region. “As the water rushed in, the first phenomenon which would occur is that the air would begin to rise as it was replaced by the fluid filling the basic. The air would pick up moisture via evaporation from the flood water as it continued to pour in to the Mediterranean. As the air rose, adiabatic cooling would take place. As the air cools, the moisture contained in the air condenses to form clouds which eventually will produce rain. Since the air over an area of 964,000 square miles was moving upward simultaneously, the rains from this mechanism would be torrential.”

Now, I'm not saying that was it, the biblical Flood, but it shows that the data recorded in the Bible isn't necessarily specious, or that it has never happened in history. There's another possibility (at least for our understanding): The geology of the Black Sea suggests a flooding that occurred when the then-small lake in the center of the Sea rapidly became a large sea. This happened when waters from the Mediterranean found a pathway to the much lower Black Sea area. This change in the lake has been known since the 1920s. Since then, it has become clear that the flooding occurred about 7500 years ago (5500 BC) and that about 60,000 square miles (more than 100,000 square km) of the coastal areas of the lake became part of the sea in a relatively short time. Human settlements were destroyed. (BAR, Nov/Dec 2007 p. 74).

> I would not have a lot of confidence relying on ancient accounts as my best evidence, especially given all the types of impossible stories ancient people made up all the time.

Except that this story is told in many separate cultures. Just my opinion, but I happen to believe it. To me it has biblical and evidentiary credibility.

> But it's not deceptive, any more than I'm deceiving the Australians to try to communicate to them what a car is.

There are lots of ways for communication to be accomodating without being deceptive. Explaining what a car is by relating it to a goat is not necessarily deceptive or incorrect. If you go on say that your car can fly through the air like a bird that would be incorrect and deceptive.

So the writer of Genesis could have said that the earth was covered with water as far as the eye could see and all known mountains were covered with water. That would be true (according to your flood theory) and would have equally conveyed the same moral message. There is no need to claim that every mountain on earth was covered in order to communicate with ancient people.

There are two possible ways to tell the story that are both equally understandable to ancient people but one is true (according to your flood theory) and one is false. Why did god or the writer of genesis go with the incorrect version?

> It's not a matter of certainty, but of the weight of evidence

You said "certainly there was a flood." This is why assumed you had a high level of certainty. But your reasons don't make sense given this level of certainty. You admit a global flood doesn't make sense, but then you cite a bible as a reliable source for flood information even though the bible implies a global flood. You say floods are possible, but I don't think it is possible for rain to cause even a local area to flood to the point that mountains are covered. At least it has never happened in recorded history. So for something so rare I would not have a lot of confidence relying on ancient accounts as my best evidence, especially given all the types of implossible stories ancient people made up all the time.