The Biblical account of the Flood is not historically accurate.

Thanks to Pro for the quick response. I shall also 'jump right in'. History: "The first civilization on earth was known as Mesopotamia with Egypt following right behind [1]." Abraham, the first of the Hebrew patriarchs is said to have grown up in Mesopotamia. [1] While I will get into the timeline later, it is important to note that within Mesopotamia were already the origins of the Jewish nation. (And subsequently the Christian nation.) "Ancient Israel was around 1950 BC." That is only partially true. The origins of biblical stories date back to 3760 BC, with the creation of Adam and Eve. [2] As such, if the bible includes those stories, it would be reasonable to assume that they are a part of the tradition, and part of the formation of the Jewish nation. "Now when did the flood occur according to the bible? Some biblical scholars have shown that one date they can say with reliable certainty is 967 BC [7]." Here, I'd like to call out Pro for not reading his sources correctly. The site he mentions clearly states, "The next date we can put down with reliable certainty is 967 BC or 2,948 years ago. *This is the date at which Solomon laid the foundation of the Temple*." That has nothing to do with Noah's flood and, in fact, the conclusion of the article is that "...the Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC " 11 years." "Now some scholars have the epic of Gilgamesh being written around 2750 BC, and others have it being written as early as 3000 BC [8][4]. " Once again, another source issue that I will point out. The dates that Academy for Ancient Texts gives are not related to the epic, but rather to the time period the King of Uruk may have reigned. And a VERY important point: "The Gilgamesh Epic is named after its main character Gilgamesh, a king of the Sumerian city of Uruk, a historical figure who ruled sometime between 2800 and 2500 BC. The story itself "evolved" so to speak... Also, the earliest versions of this epic did not even include a flood story. That was added toward the end of the second millennium and was deliberately adopted from Atrahasis." [3] The Epic of Atrahasis is another of the Sumerian Epics and the full version of the flood tale was only edited sometime between 1300 and 1000 BC. Even the short version of the flood story dates back only to 2000-1500 BC. [4] This makes the timeline something like this, in fact: First date recorded in Old Testament - 3760 BC Noah's flood - (somewhere between) 2300-2100 BC Sumerian Flood story (the short version) - 2000-1500 BC The revelation at Sinai and giving of the Torah - 1280 BC [2] That places the flood in a reasonable time frame for stories to have come about. If we take the long version of the flood story (1300-1000 BC), we actually find that it falls remarkably within the time frame of the giving of the Torah. There is the possibility that the short version is nothing more than a legend based off a real event and the long version was copied from the bible itself. In addition, if both the Epic of Gilgamesh and the bible are indeed based on the same event, there is no reason why the two shouldn't be similar. The only contention I might see here is if the bible copied almost word for word the Epic of Gilgamesh and definitely post dated the whole Mesopotamia period. However, neither are the case. Both accounts aren't worded exactly the same, and they are both written in different languages. Part of the Jewish tradition is that even before the Torah was put into a written format, it was still observed and taught by the predecessors of the Jewish people. [5] For example, G-d commanded Noah to have one pair of the impure animals, meaning it was assumed he knew which animals were pure and which were not. As another example, Joseph refused to sleep with Potifar's wife because it was a sin. If there was no Torah, how would he know it was a sin? So it is possible that the Sumerian flood tales actually derived from this oral tradition of the Torah. Shem, one of the three sons of Noah was born at approximately 2300 BC. [2] Him and his family also inhabited the Mesopotamian valley after the flood. [6] The Ark: So, as mentioned by Pro, there is controversy over whether the flood was local or global. I would like to explain how both are actually possible, depending on the interpretation. In regards to the flood being global, I'm going to recommend an excellent book: Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, by John Woodmorappe. The title describes the content and the book is based on seven years of research (including research on animal care). Woodmorappe maintains that there were approximately 16,000 different animals aboard. Now, it's important to understand just how big the ark actually was. It was approximately the size of 1.5 football fields in length. [7] That's quite big. He then assigned the animals into categories according to their body weight (16,000 elephants might not fit on a boat, but 16,000 rats might.) Only 15% of the animals were the size of a sheep or bigger. Woodmorappe explains a system where the animals are given adequate housing, some are placed together (for example, several farm animals could be housed in one unit as opposed to in separate spaces), and mentions the possibility of bringing baby animals aboard to minimize spacing. All in all, he manages to provide adequate housing for all the species of animals as well as space for food and water with room still to spare. In addition he documents how excretion would be disposed of (three levels of the ark, bottom level is for waste), how 8 people could maintain the animals aboard, and fulfill food requirements, basically by designing the ark in a very self-sustaining manner. He also discusses the evolution aspect, showing how small populations have increased and even given rise to new species within centuries, and even decades. As a personal example, my family adopted a mother cat and her three kittens one September. Before the end of that year we had fourteen cats in our yard just from the original four. (And that doesn't include the four kittens that died during the births). That means our cat population tripled in just one year! Woodmorappe also explains how genetic diversity was also possible given the small number of animals. [8] The reason there is speculation of the flood being local comes from the wording of the text. The words used to describe the flood are "Al ha'adama" (on the earth) and "Al ha'aretz'" (on the land). In Hebrew, 'adama' doesn't just mean earth, it can also mean soil or land. [9] If, indeed, the flood was local, then the problems Pro mention all disappear. If 16,000 animals can fit aboard, then 1,000 local animals certainly can, with food, management and excretion all being taken into account. Rebuilding Contentions: Whether local or global, the possibility of a flood as described in the bible is certainly possible. There are currently two scientific theories in existence which have yet to be refuted. One suggests a global flood, the other, a local flood. The global flood theory is described in the previous round, with a comet crashing into the ocean. Then there's the local flood theory which is the flooding of the area now known as the Black Sea. The idea there is that when glaciers from the last Ice Age melted, the Mediterranean Sea overflowed, flooding the entire area. [10] Closing notes: I have explained how the timeline, as presented by Pro, is inaccurate, and given a timeline where the flood fits in with the various legends. I have also described how it was possible for Noah to care for the various animals on the ark, explained the problems regarding evolution, and offered possibilities for how the flood may have taken place. In the future, I might recommend structuring such a debate slightly differently, where Pro's second round includes opening contentions and rebuttals because that offers his opponent an opportunity to defend their points. The way the debate is currently structured, Pro can respond to Con's refutations in the third round, while Con cannot respond to Pro's refutations, only their contentions. All in all though, many thanks to Mikal for this debate which has been thoughtful, respectful and overall enjoyable. [1] http://www.britannica.com... [2] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... [3] http://biologos.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.betemunah.org... [6] http://www.biblesearchers.com... [7] http://arkencounter.com... [8] http://www.icr.org... [9] http://translate.google.com... [10] http://science.howstuffworks.com...