the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

To start, I will simply assume the structure is go until one gives in or until the end. I hope for a healthy debate here:) First off, I do not see how it discredits the bible. It is wholly possible that a flood of that magnitude is possible and that it happened. Personally, I find it helps us understand the separation of Pangaea. Back on topic, the versus you give us do little to no discredit the Bible. First example: "The clearest verses that show the extent of the flood are Genesis 7:19-23. Regarding the waters, "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished"birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." This is just saying what it says in the OT. "Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Here it says that the days of man will be like unto Noah's. I certainly cannot disagree as this sounds eerily familiar to today. "see also Luke 17:26" Well, here it is:And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." Sounds like a repeat of Matthew. "the best a person could argue, is that the story was a myth. and the people of hte new testament didn't necessarily say that it was true that it was a global flood, and that animals were all killed. but they did, however, give credence to the story of noah, a story that is basically a myth. even if the flood wasn't worldwide, it is still said to be in the OTestament. that alone is discrediting." All I have to say here is challenge accepted. I will debate that Noah and the flood does not discredit the Bible and is not a myth. "more reference to noah in the bible: (Isaiah 54:9; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 11:7) ""This is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you. "because they formerly did not obey, when God"s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. "5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;" "7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith." I will start with the first. 1.God is saying he will not be angry or rebuke like with the flood. 2.God waited for Noah to build the ark and only 8 were saved from Noah's day. 3.Again, God saved only Noah and his kin but destroyed the ungodly. 4.Noah was told to build an ark, and so he built it. He did this to save his household(family) and so the rest of the world was condemned and Noah was the symbol of righteousness. So far, I have not seen any condemning evidence that says anything to degrade or discredit the Bible. Over to you Pro!