I know you are spot on Dancing Fool. Christians, however, will attempt to justify the errors and lies in the bible. They will say things like many of the parts of the bible are not meant to be taken literally. It's a common tactic. Next, they will revise history to fit their narrative. Another common tactic.
Then they will attempt to flip the script and accuse YOU of not being open minded even though it is they that have proposed a myth and offer absolutely NO proof whatsoever. Nothing could be more stubborn and close minded.
Then they will offer propaganda written by people that got their PhDs from questionable sources. They might even offer a YouTube video that proves ZERO and has NO credibility.
The next tactic, of course, is to cherry-pick some credible sources, essentially revising to fit their narrative.
Oh but that has already happened. Oh Well, the OP is spot on.

DancingFool
I once posed these same questions to an expert on the ark, when something like this. How did noah and his family survive on the ark at freezing altitude for months with no heat source? Where did they get fresh water for themselves and the animals because the water outside of the ark was to salty to drink? Where did they store all the food for themselves and the animals? Where did they store the all the hay for use as bedding in the animals pens? How did the air on the ark stay fresh with only one window? I never received a reply back from the expert.

I'm free,

Thanks for coming over .

That the story has many counterparts in other ancient literature is freely acknowledged. I believe Moses was the author and he was apparently well educated. Other Biblical writers used sources also. I could post excepts from other Bible commentaries on this.

The Following comes from a study Bible I like "The NIV Archaeological Study Bible published by Zondervan".

I don't think the ancients thought about things like attributing sources. Its not like its fair to them to hold them to modern standards.
Feel free to think what you may about that. But we can agree that flood stories were around in ancient times. Who borrowed from who might be a matter for debate. When I have studied the Bible - or do study it - I like to use more than one commentary or study Bible. But this information would be admitted by all, I would think.
Is this information new to you? Its a given for me. I like to use more than one - maybe several commentaries sometimes because I believe in free inquiry. I don't have to accept anything just because someone wrote something - I can think about it and do more research.
Larry
ANCIENT TEXTS AND ARTIFACTS
Ancient Flood Narratives
GENESIS 6 The traditions of ancient peoples throughout the world share in common the inclusion of flood stories. The Mesopotamian accounts have garnered the most discussion since they are culturally closer to the Biblical material than any of the other non- Scriptural narratives. The most famous Mesopotamian flood account is the Babylonian version, found in the library of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal (seventh century b. c.) as part of the larger Epic of Gilgamesh.
In this epic, Gilgamesh searches for a man named Utnapishtum (the equivalent of the Biblical Noah), whose story is then recounted. When one of the highest gods, Enlil, becomes annoyed by the cacophony of noise coming from human beings, he decides to inundate and destroy them all in a catastrophic deluge. Enki, the god of waters, reveals Enlil's intent to the mortal Utnapishtum, directing him to construct an enormous boat and load it with pairs of animals. Instructed not to reveal the reason for this mystifying building project, Utnapishtum is further commanded at a critical point to take his wife on board with him. For seven harried days and nights Utnapishtum and his wife are tossed about in this vessel as floodwaters engulf the earth. When the waters finally subside, the boat lodges atop a tall mountain. Utnapishtum sends out a dove, a swallow and a raven, the last of which fails to return, apparently having located nourishment. The man then disembarks and offers lavish sacrifices to the gods, who in turn bestow eternal life upon him and his wife for having safeguarded the future of humans and animals.
An Akkadian account dating to around 1600 b. c. recounts basically the same tale as that embedded in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, except that the Noah- character is named Atra- hasis. An even earlier Sumerian version, known as the Eridu Genesis, contains the stories of creation and the development of the first cities, along with an account of the great flood. Here the hero is Ziusudra.
Bible readers will immediately recognize the similarities between the Mesopotamian and Biblical accounts. But there are significant differences, too. According to the Bible God was not simply irritated by the sin of humanity; he was profoundly grieved, to the point that "his heart was filled with pain" by the magnitude of human sin (6:5–7). Nor was his plan thwarted by the cunning of another deity; God himself chose to preserve both humanity and animal life through Noah (vv. 13–22). Genesis also attests to a longer flood period and, although God made a covenant with Noah, he did not grant him immortality.
Assuming a later date for the Biblical composition, some scholars have suggested that Mesopotamian accounts may have served as a prototype for the narrative in Genesis. But most researchers believe that the Biblical account is not simply a modification of the Mesopotamian stories but one of several versions of a common story. The differences can be attributed to the special revelation God gave the Biblical authors, including the writer of Genesis, by which he made known his plan of redemption. The other versions provide extra biblical confirmation of the story of a great flood rather than demonstrating, as some have suggested, that the Biblical account is a myth.

Larry A. - http://biologos.org/resources/the-big-story/

It was just god of the gaps with a little paint splashed on it. I guess it is slightly better than the fundies who think scientists are engaged in conspiracy.

How did they breath 6 miles up? Magic. Where did the water come from? Magic? Where did it go? Magic. How come the Chinese didn't notice it? Magic. And the Egyptians? Magic. Magic is the explanation for all doubts. Praise jeebus

I watched e video I'm Free provided a link to. They made a point of talking about "serious scholars who write for peer reviewed journals." Good point. For the sake of argument I would be willing to concede everything about the Old testament that the most critical reputable recognized scholars agree on.

That goes to dating of the books and sources.

Just so you folks know none of that would damage my faith. I can integrate all of the scholarly information into my academic understanding of the BIble and still retain the essentials of my faith -

1Co 15:3  For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 
1Co 15:4  that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 
1Co 15:5  and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 
1Co 15:6  Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 
1Co 15:7  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 
1Co 15:8  Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 

On the basis of serious peer reviewed scholarship I can tell you that the message of these verses goes back to the earliest preaching of the Christian church and are taken as historical sources by almost all - if not all - serious peer reviewed bible scholars and ancient historians - the people who study ancient history.- and write their research up for peer reviewed journals.

See Below for a just a little about this;

MULTIPLE SOURCES AND CHRISTIAN FAITH

At this point some Christian readers may be feeling a little uncomfortable with all this talk about multiple sources behind the Gospels. Let me try to put minds at rest by pointing out that one of the Gospel writers himself highlights for his readers his use of earlier sources. In the introduction to his Gospel, Luke tells his patron, Theophilus, to whom the volume is dedicated, that he has written his work only after careful research into a number of prior sources, both written and spoken:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1–4).

Whatever else this is, it is an affirmation of Luke’s knowledge and use of earlier sources about Jesus. The sources are of two types: (1) other written accounts, of which Luke says there were “many” at the time of writing, and (2) traditions coming from “eyewitnesses” and “servants of the word.” This latter source is what modern scholars call “oral tradition,” memorised reports of the things Jesus did and said in the presence of his followers (oral tradition will be discussed in the next chapter). Luke was well placed to write an “orderly account” of these things since, as a highly educated travelling companion of the apostle Paul, he had both research ability and access to important material. In any case, the point is this: although not motivated by Luke’s introductory statement, modern scholars’ identification and analysis of Gospel sources (Mark, Q, L, M and SQ) are entirely consistent with what Luke himself affirms.

Dickson, J. P. (2010). The Christ Files: How Historians Know What They Know about Jesus (pp. 58–59). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Alanna Nobba.tells us who Dickson is and the bottom of the excerpt tells us who Alanna Nobbs is;

FOREWORD

“CONFESSING ONE IS AN ANCIENT HISTORIAN,” IT HAS BEEN SAID, “is something of a conversation stopper at a party.” Having taught ancient history at university for thirty-seven years (without saying how many conversations have been stopped), I am sure this book will put ancient history into the conversation-starter category for anyone at all interested in the historical evidence for the origins of the Christian faith.
John Dickson has many lives: husband, father, musician, pastor, teacher, to name a few. But to me and my colleagues he is a former and very successful PhD student who finished a high-quality PhD with minimum fuss and moreover published a book on the topic with a prestigious German publisher soon afterward. A lecturer’s dream if you like. So many of us stop there, writing for other academics, spending most of our time chasing erudite footnotes and being cautious about expressing an opinion on anything controversial in case we provoke a hostile footnote ourselves.
This book rests on a sound basis of scholarship (both English and non-English speaking, as is entirely necessary in this field), and nothing in it has been written without due concern for the weight of scholarly argument behind the scenes. It is also written with a conviction that comes from a historian’s judgment. John presents his material fairly, noting where disagreement occurs and letting us see how he has come to make up his mind as he has. He invites us to look closely at the historical claims of Christianity while being careful to draw the line between what a historian can argue and where a more personal faith comes into play. The critical point is that his scholarship, though real, is also accessible. The reader will find it hard to escape Dickson’s conclusion that the Gospels, the main sources of our knowledge of Jesus, deserve to be read seriously.

Professor Alanna Nobbs
Head of the Department of Ancient History
President of the Society for the Study of Early Christianity
Macquarie University, Australia

Nobbs, A. (2010). Foreword. In The Christ Files: How Historians Know What They Know about Jesus (p. 11). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Larry

Larry A. - I believe Moses was the author

I know you've tried to paint a picture of how reasonable you are Larry, but I have to say that statement exposes some pretty serious cracks in that facade.

On the dating of Genesis.

A book I own but have not read yet is entitled

”Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition” by James K. Hoffmeier and published by Oxford University Press.

Oxford University Press - that should be seen as an acceptable source for information.

On page 196 there is a discussion of dating that goes like this:

“My studies and those of Kitchen , which were completely independant of each other , were both published in 1977. I assembled a body of textual and pictorial evidence from Egyptian souces spanning the eighth century B.C. Back to the Middle Kingdom ( twentieth century B.C. ) which demonstrated that the Egyptians used tents on military and trade campaigns , as well as for religious purposes. When Thutmose II defeated the Canannite coalition at Meggido , he took away as booty the tent poles ...One text in particular is damning to van Seeter's position is found in the Admonitions if Ipuwer, the dating of which is disputed , but which certainly predates the sixteenth century.”

I would have to get Kitchen's book to look at his dating for Genesis- Exodus. But it is possible and reasonable to argue for quite early dating of Genesis on emperical and linguistic bases.

Scholars argue about a lot of things. But when I have choice between someone who bases his conclusions on emperical work vs one that bases his on philosophical assumptions rather than on actual emperical work – I go with the conclusions of the emperical researcher. Why is that unreasonable?

Larry

DancingFool,

In order to get that much additional water in that limited time, forty days and forty nights, it would have to rain over 6 inches a minute. At that rate it would be suffocating, plus the noise on the wooden boat. But it's their story. Yahweh won't let them take it metaphorically or as a war story. So we have to go with a rainfall of slightly over 6 inches per minute all over the Earth.

I personally think that people who believe ancient ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish and Arabian and other Asian religious fairy tales are insane. But that's true for everyone who believes in religious fairy tales including my own relatives. People are basically superstitious twits.

Wow! This thread got hijacked, way off subject of noah and the ark.