Great cartoon showing the absurdity of the logistics of Noah’s Ark!
Part 1:
Part 2:
Slow day Chris? 
To be honest, yeah! 
I’ve watched very video on his channel over the last year or so. It’s amusing enough if you want to see Fundamentalism bashed, but he rarely goes after anything but a soft target. In this case he attacks the global view of the flood, which is fine, but doesn’t address the local interpretation (which is clearly indicated in the text).
Sorry - I have guests here, so shouldn’t even be online, certainly can’t watch the videos, and will keep it brief. But what,Fortigurn, is “the soft target”? Religion in general or the Noah story? I’ll have to watch the videos tomorrow, but I’d be up for seeing a good “local” interpretation that explains the logistics. Many biblical stories strike me as daft but I never say so outright to my Christian friends. Seeing as it’s come up, I’d be interested to see what my believing friends say.
What is your point? That Genesis, correctly interpreted, is factual? Semi-factual? Plausible? Or simply not completely ridiculous?
Well this thread certainly re-enlivened the forum. 
The soft target is Fundamentalism. Take the most ridiculous interpretations of the Bible, as presented by the least scholarly and competent commentators, and ridicule them. Add Youtube and lulz. Easy.
As early as the 1st century CE the Jewish expositors Josephus (in Judea), and Philo (in Alexandria of Egypt), both understood the Genesis flood narrative to be referring to a local flood not a global flood. The global flood interpretation predominated among the early Christians and became part of mainstream Christian Fundamentalism. However, even throughout this time those Christian expositors who understood the flood to be global had to ‘explain away’ those indicators in the text which pointed towards a local flood. Meanwhile the local interpretation survived among the Jewish expositors, where it jostled for attention with the global interpretation. The local interpretation re-entered Christianity at least as early as the 17th century.
Approximately 90% of the video is making the entirely valid logistical argument that Noah could not possibly have carried representatives of every species of animal on the planet, aboard the Ark. With the local interpretation, he didn’t do that at all; he only took representative animals from his immediate local area (and these didn’t include insects). Thus 90% of the video’s argument is completely irrelevant to the local flood interpretation. The other 10% consisted of logistical difficulties involving the entire globe being covered with 29,000 feet of water, which of course in the local interpretation it wasn’t; this leaves none of the video’s logistical arguments relevant to a local flood interpretation. Unlike the global flood interpretation, the local flood interpretation doesn’t have to keep on dragging in God and waving Him around like a magic wand to make all the problems go away.
Interpretation doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about how factual the account is, unless we have evidence with which to test a particular interpretation. My point is that the Genesis flood narrative, correctly interpreted, is neither absurd nor impossible (as represented by the video), unlike the Fundamentalist interpretation (which is both).
Well, one major point of the video is to criticize young earth creationists and Biblical literalist fundamentalists, who have undue influence over school curricula in the US.
I don’t think he’d have much of a beef with Christians who adhere to the local flood idea.
(I didn’t know there were “local flood” Christians until now, having thought instead there were, more or less, global flood believers, flood-as-allegory believers, and “salad-bar Christians” who accept some parts of the Bible but reject others.)
“Especially stink beetles.”
Given that he’s an Australian, I doubt that the US is particularly in his sights, and of course in Australia Fundamentalism is considered an embarrassing fringe view even among Christians. But those literaliist fundamentalists wouldn’t have any influence over the school curricula if you didn’t have democracy. Just change the system, and make a law which says if you’re a Christian you’re not allowed to vote or lobby the government. Simple. In actual fact of course they have virtually no influence at all, their efforts were ruled as unconstitutional years ago, the US Fundamentalist movement has failed catastrophically to achieve any of its key goals, and evolution education in state schools in the US is better in some ‘Red’ states than in some ‘Blue’ states; there’s no evidence that the Fundamentalists have succeeded in dumbing down the curriculum.
I think he’d still object to them on principle.
There’s a lengthy tradition of Christians who have interpreted the Bible as much as possible within its original socio-cultural context, and who regarded interpretations of Scripture as necessarily subject to tests for validity, such as looking for actual evidence. It’s from within this tradition that the most detailed and scathing criticisms of Christianity have always come. When it comes to shoving the Bible and Christianity under a microscope and scrutinizing it mercilessly, there isn’t a group in existence which can beat a good solid 700 years of Christian criticism of its own sacred text (the Jews have a very good track record as well, but it’s not quite as deep or lengthy).
What verses indicate a local flood?
It’s not just about verses: that’s the problem with the fundamentalist argument. The Genesis myths, especially the flood myth, correlate with pre-judean myths from Sumeria and were absorbed into what has become The Bible. You have to put the story into the context of the time and place. You can’t interpret The Bible with verses from within The Bible itself alone.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
As early as the 1st century CE the Jewish expositors Josephus (in Judea), and Philo (in Alexandria of Egypt), both understood the Genesis flood narrative to be referring to a local flood not a global flood. The global flood interpretation predominated among the early Christians and became part of mainstream Christian Fundamentalism. However, even throughout this time those Christian expositors who understood the flood to be global had to ‘explain away’ those indicators in the text which pointed towards a local flood. Meanwhile the local interpretation survived among the Jewish expositors, where it jostled for attention with the global interpretation. The local interpretation re-entered Christianity at least as early as the 17th century.[/quote]
Just saw this thread since it was resurrected (no pun intended)
But Fort, I believe you are very aware that you are misrepresenting the Jewish opinion here.
First, to take Josphus and Philo as examples of “Jewish expositors” would be akin to quoting Alan Dershowitz as a Jewish expositor. Yeah, these two people were Jewish but were not IN ANY WAY part of the Jewish interpretive tradition. Until recently, it was not even widely known that Philo was Jewish. Their opinions, in no way shape or form are examples of Jewish interpretation of the bible.
And your comment “Meanwhile, the local interpretation survived among the Jewish expositors” is equally (or perhaps more) inaccurate. According to the Talmud and Midrashim (at least, lets say 90% of the opinions therein) the flood was global.
Now, the Christian interpretation, its history and development…I have no clue about.
It’s not just about verses: that’s the problem with the fundamentalist argument. The Genesis myths, especially the flood myth, correlate with pre-judean myths from Sumeria and were absorbed into what has become The Bible. You have to put the story into the context of the time and place. You can’t interpret The Bible with verses from within The Bible itself alone.[/quote]
Are we to take it then that “no” verses in the Bible specify that it was a local flood?
I’ve never heard of the local flood story either. To be honest, it doesn’t make for a very good story. Kinda wonder what the point was of making that huge ark and rescuing all those animals.
Are there other interpretations of other famous stories such as the water into wine one? I’m honestly curious.
Logistics should especially include matters of supply, no?
Try to guess which of the following is satire:
objectiveministries.org/creation/kangaroo.html
[quote=“Confuzius”]But Fort, I believe you are very aware that you are misrepresenting the Jewish opinion here.
First, to take Josphus and Philo as examples of “Jewish expositors” would be akin to quoting Alan Dershowitz as a Jewish expositor. Yeah, these two people were Jewish but were not IN ANY WAY part of the Jewish interpretive tradition. Until recently, it was not even widely known that Philo was Jewish. Their opinions, in no way shape or form are examples of Jewish interpretation of the bible.[/quote]
I disagree with you there. Both Philo and Josephus are well within Second Temple Period Judaism in terms of their exegetical approach (Philo’s allegorizing has a Hellenistic source, but isn’t otherwise different to the rampant Jewish allegorization of the Second Temple Period), and their position within the Jewish interpretive tradition. Philo’s tendency towards Platonizing syncretism is sui generis, but with regard to their approach to the flood narrative, neither of them are outside Second Temple Period Judaism. Whatever makes you think that neither of them are part of the Jewish interpretive tradition? And what on earth gives you the idea that it wasn’t until recently that Philo was recognized as Jewish? Josephus says Philo was Jewish, and so does Philo himself; surely the name ‘Philo Judaeus’ wasn’t overlooked?
Do you have any evidence for this? I’m not sure that it’s as high as 90%, though it is much higher than the local interpretation. Even if true, it doesn’t change the fact that the local interpretation survived within the rabbinic tradition. If I had said it flourished, you would have legitimate cause for complaint.
Yes there are; apart from the language used, there’s the reference to survivors. In any case, the earliest recipients of the text had no concept of the entire earth as we do; the Sumerians used phrases such as ‘the entire universe’ to refer to the kingdom of Sumer.
It makes for a story which actually makes sense within the socio-historical context, not to mention the fact that it’s more realistic. If there’s going to be a global flood, you cannot possibly put all the animals in a ship. On the other hand, it makes sense to preserve local domestic and wild animals ahead of a local flood, so you have a head start when you end up in the devastated post-flood ecology.
As for the size of the Ark, forget the Sunday School pictures you see of Ark interiors filled with tightly packed stalls for the animals, it’s completely unrealistic. In reality, most of the space would have been required for food, water, and at least temporary waste storage; with perhaps 25-30% of the space reserved for the animals. The ratio of room for animals and room for supplies would have been the complete opposite of what you see in typical pictures. A massive ship was required for even a small number of domestic animals; it would not have been possible to build a ship large enough to pack thousands of animals onboard, together with sufficient supplies.
[quote=“Zla’od”]Logistics should especially include matters of supply, no?
Try to guess which of the following is satire:
objectiveministries.org/creation/kangaroo.html[/quote]
The first. But Poe’s Law is strong with this one.
[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“Confuzius”]But Fort, I believe you are very aware that you are misrepresenting the Jewish opinion here.
First, to take Josphus and Philo as examples of “Jewish expositors” would be akin to quoting Alan Dershowitz as a Jewish expositor. Yeah, these two people were Jewish but were not IN ANY WAY part of the Jewish interpretive tradition. Until recently, it was not even widely known that Philo was Jewish. Their opinions, in no way shape or form are examples of Jewish interpretation of the bible.[/quote]
I disagree with you there. Both Philo and Josephus are well within Second Temple Period Judaism in terms of their exegetical approach [/quote]
I know you know your stuff, so I believe you know how deceptive this statement may be to people who are not familiar with this subject.
There is no single “Second Temple Period” Jewish exegetical approach; there were many. So this statement really doesn’t say much of anything. As I have no doubt you know, Judaism during the 2nd temple was extremely diverse…much more so than it is today perhaps (definitely much more so than it was for a good thousand plus years until the modern era). So there is no “approach” for them to be “well within”.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
(Philo’s allegorizing has a Hellenistic source, but isn’t otherwise different to the rampant Jewish allegorization of the Second Temple Period), and their position within the Jewish interpretive tradition.Philo’s tendency towards Platonizing syncretism is sui generis, but with regard to their approach to the flood narrative, neither of them are outside Second Temple Period Judaism. Whatever makes you think that neither of them are part of the Jewish interpretive tradition? [/quote]
They have no position within “The Jewish interpretive tradition” the Talmud does not mention Josephus (source: http://torahmusings.com/2012/07/josephus-and-the-sages/)
Thus, it is impossible to use Josephus as a representative of the Jewish interpretive tradition, which is essentially defined by rabbinic literature.
Philo was had no reception within this tradition either (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo “Philo used philosophical allegory to attempt to fuse and harmonize Greek philosophy with Jewish philosophy. His method followed the practices of both Jewish exegesis and Stoic philosophy. His allegorical exegesis was important for several Christian Church Fathers, but he has barely any reception history within Judaism.”)
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
And what on earth gives you the idea that it wasn’t until recently that Philo was recognized as Jewish? Josephus says Philo was Jewish, and so does Philo himself; surely the name ‘Philo Judaeus’ wasn’t overlooked?[/quote]
He was also referred to as “Philo Christianus” and considered an early pillar of Christian theology/philosophy/metaphysics/cosmology etc. Until recently he was thought to be Christian, not Jewish (by faith I mean). So again, not part of the Jewish interpretive tradition.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]
Do you have any evidence for this? I’m not sure that it’s as high as 90%, though it is much higher than the local interpretation. Even if true, it doesn’t change the fact that the local interpretation survived within the rabbinic tradition. If I had said it flourished, you would have legitimate cause for complaint.[/quote]
I can hunt the talmud for quotes if you want, though you agree the global version is much, much higher so there appears to be no actual disagreement between us here.
My complaint with you in all of this: You overstate their importance and use authors who were not, in any way, considered by the Jewish tradition to be authoritative as representatives of Jewish beliefs. You know this, I know this, but others reading your original post could easily walk away thinking “OH! Josephus and Philo (Jews) said XYZ, so that must be a widely held Jewish belief.” Which we both know it is not. From reading your post, that how it seemed, thats all.
How does a local flood square with the ‘God created the heavens and the earth’ stuff in Genesis?