Yes David, here we all are, still discussing arks. If the Bible talks about something, then so will society. It’s that kind of book.

Sock-Ra-Tease,
I’m glad that you recognise that the Bible has a clear enough dating system that it can be readily compared with the chronology of ancient peoples. That’s interesting in itself. Similarly with Keith Mascord’s article, he’s acknowledging that the Bible has something to say relevant to geology and natural history, at least to the level that one can make comparisons between it and commonly taught theories.

The Bible’s chronology puts the Great Flood at around 2300 BC, which does conflict with the standard dates of Egyptian kings your likely to find in the encyclopedia.

But with regard to the records of the ancients, the commonly accepted lists of Egyptian pharaohs can be sketchy and unreliable. Manetho wrote a history of Egypt for the library at Alexandria in the 3rd century BC, and he is the main authority from which the list of Pharaohs is usually ordered. Yet none of Manetho’s writings exist. The only source we have for Manetho’s writings are some of his statements that have been quoted by much later historians such as Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Syncellus. One authority on Egyptian history, Sir Alan Gardiner, stated ‘Even when full use has been made of the king lists and of such subsidiary sources as have survived, the indispensable dynastic framework of Egyptian history shows lamentable gaps and many a doubtful attribution …What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters.

Ozandyh,
Are you alleging that Australia is older than the other continents? Older in what sense?

I’m not sure what you mean when you say the evidence of biblical geology doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There’s plenty of evidence within the link I provided for Tas Walker’s website. Which piece of evidence were you referring to? Keith, in his article said there was no evidence for biblical geology. So are you disagreeing with Keith and saying now that there is some? (There must be some evidence to speak of if you’re saying this evidence isn’t standing up to scrutiny.)

But actually, it is good to try to be clear with our terms. For example, the ‘evidence’ itself is always neutral. The evidence is plainly there for anyone to examine and analyse. It’s the interpretation that we bring upon the evidence that we scrutinise.

For what you said about scientists being in agreement, of course certain biologists and geologists will naturally agree when they’re singing from the same song sheet (that is, choosing the same philosophical background assumptions.)

As the author of 'The surprising contemporary relevance of the Noah flood story' it has fascinating to follow the discussion thus far. Thanks for the respectful, if sometimes (understandably) puzzled commments. I am with those who wonder why one would re-visit a literalistic reading of the Noah story. Most people, including Christians (and myself included) have long since recognized the impossibility of taking the story seriously ... as fact BUT some still do - including my parents (to whom I dedicate A Restless Faith) and siblings. The point of the article is to draw out some implications of what, historically, has been a gradual dawning of understanding (beginning in the early 1800s and continuing today) for contemporary debates, including the marriage equality debate.

I am one who still wants to take the Christian and Jewish Scriptures seriously, and to draw from their wisdom, but it is simply not enough to say, 'The Bible says x, therefore x is so.' We've a little more work to do before we can sensibly apply the ancient Scriptures to matters of contemporary concern.

One of the reasons for using the Noah story is that it might prove a helpful way to facilitate a less polarized and polarizing debate. I am hopeful it might be of help to people like my siblings (my parents are deceased)in giving them options on issues such as same-sex marriage and gender roles.

There is more than one way to be a Chrisian; there is more than one way to be human. It is possible, I think, to keep mind, heart and spirit in happy relationship.

PS. On the scientific issues I am happily guided by at least one highly qualified professional geologist - who happens also to be a Christian; as I am by long-since-settled scientific consensus on the issues I raise.

@Restless "There is more than one way to be a Christian;"

The only way I know of to be a Christian is to believe in the virgin birth and divine origins of Jesus Christ, and to accept his resurrection and ascent into Heaven as established facts. And since there is no more reason to believe this than to believe in the occurrence of Noah's Flood, anyone who is prepared to reject one should be prepared to reject the other.

Mere fuzzy waffle about being nice to each other has no more to do with the Christian religion than respecting one's parents has to do with Confucianism.

'The only way I know of to be a Christian is to believe in the virgin birth and divine origins of Jesus Christ, and to accept his resurrection and ascent into Heaven as established facts.'

Respectfully, not even hard-nosed fundamentalists are likely to describe the beliefs you mention as 'established facts.' Most, I would think, simply accept them on trust - and wouldn't try to 'establish' them by way of argument or evidence.

Moreover, your statement appears to imply that only fundamentalist Christians are Christian - that is a massive call, and entirely unwarranted.

Re Noah's Flood and whether it is fact or fiction, many Christians have come to understand this story as mythical over the last 100 years and more - without thereby compromising their Christian faith.

Re being nice, I do want to respect and be respectful towards those I differ with; such respectful engagement is entirely compatible with my core Christian values - if fact, is demanded by them.

Jesus, the paridigmatic 'Christian', was lovingly respectful towards all, teaching that we should love even our enemies.

Love your enemies -- and hate your family and yourself:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be my disciple." -- (Luke 14:26)

It's certainly convenient to have a Messiah who said so many contradictory things. It makes it possible to pick and choose the ones that will make you look good in any given situation. If I ever found a religion I will make a point of emulating Jesus, and contradicting myself as often as possible.

On the other hand it must be confusing, especially for the children. "Who are we worshipping today, Daddy -- Loving Jesus or Hateful Jesus?"
....../2