And sorry to beat a dead horse(sorry for that term, but I know it best describes what I'm doing here), one last thing.

"However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood."

This is in direct conflict with this statement.

"‘And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."

And so once again I say, """""EVERY LIVING THING OF FLESH"""""", those aren't my words, those are of the Bible. If every living thing of flesh was to be preserved, and yet some were made extinct by the turbulent waters, then either Noah failed at his task, or God didn't mean "every living thing of flesh"!!!!!!!!!

I'm not calling anyone a liar, or truth twister, I'm just trying to reconcille this issue for myself.

Taking the text literally? Of course Noah was told to include 8 humans in the ark, so as described it happened - just look at it from God's perspective as to its deeper meaning is all I'm suggesting: to the question of whether the story is truth or myth, the importance of its truth goes to God's own truth: Who he himself is (his holy deity and sin's abhorrence to him), and how he deals with us in both saving those who place their faith in his saving action and condemning those whose unbelief in him condemns them...his grace is withdrawn from them.

Jesus himself referred to our day with Noah's day as an example in wickedness, being in principle the selfsame scenario: the world to choose belief in God or not about salvation from eternal death.

As for the practicalities of Noah's ark, it was the length of one and a half football pitches (that's SOCCER to you Americans!), which are required to be at least 100 yards long, half a pitch's width (@ 25 yards) and 3 storeys high at 15 yards. That's practically the biggest boat ever built by mankind. Its deck surface area was 36 lawn tennis courts (or 20 standard college basketball courts): Just how it functioned is much debated, but in Biblical history it is warranted absolute truth by all personalities and Biblical writers.

It seems to me that you are approaching things in a manner which is, I can't think of the word to characterize this, so I'll just say not completely reasonable. Here are two examples:



They say "probably" because it is isn't known with certainty. There is evidence the word means a certain thing, enough to say that it's "probable," but not enough to say it's "certain." That you would take issue with this strikes me as odd.

Another example:



It might make you think of that, but ancient Hebrew isn't your native language, so this really is a moot point. Much of what you wrote is of a similar nature.

If you're looking for a reason *not* to believe the flood story, I'm sure you can find many reasons for that. However, if you're trying to determine if the story is possible, there is evidence for that. I just pointed to one cite, but there are many others.

I'm curious, do you believe in the creation account?

If we're talking about "pitches," that's baseball, not football.


(that's a joke, Colin)

Noted

We also have cricket pitches, though that's actually the wicket - not the field

It is too bad that so many people have their confidence in the integrity of the men who wrote the Bible rather than in the truth or in the One about whom the Bible is supposed to be about. They prefer to adopt positions that make the Creator look ridiculous. Sad.

When speaking about efforts in translating a language that has been dead for at least 2000 years, "propably mean" is almost an understatement.To be picky, bacteria become "more robust" by surviving our atempts to kill them better. That does not say anything about their robustness against other kinds of threats that cause harm to them. Having said that I agree with you that the statement about what may have been in the past is lacking some desired foundation. Again, plants are generally not described as having flesh. The description could be seen as including insects though.
I wonder if there is any good way of knowing for sure which it is?

I thought it was what Noah covered the ark with?

According to Arnold Mendez, here, if the cubit is about 18 inches, this means that the ark would have been 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. The ark's gross tonnage which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton) would be 15,100 tons. The ark's total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. The standard size for a stock car is 44 feet long and a volume of 2670 cubic feet. This would make a train more than 5 ½ miles long. The floor space for the ark would be over 101,000 square feet. This would be more floor space than 21 standard college basketball courts.
Many writers on the subject of Noah's ark have different estimates for the amount of animals that the ark would have to carry. Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their book, The Genesis Flood, estimate that approximately 35,000 animals would have to be placed on board the ark. In another book written on the subject, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe states that 16,000 animals could easily be cared for on the ark.
Mendez uses the figure of 40,000 animals.
Many biologists state that the average size of most vertebrates is the size of a sheep. One railroad stock car can carry about 240 sheep. This would mean that all 40,000 animals could fit in 167 railroad cars. The ark’s total capacity was 569 stock cars. The 40,000 animals would require less than 30% of the ark's space. In other words, all the animals could fit on one of the ark's three decks. (Additional details in his website.)

Hmm, and could 8 people daily care for 35,000 animals in a satisfactory way? Just providing them all with water could prove to be more than eight fulltime jobs.