Was Noah's ark round?

Fairey tale.

Probably not. But a local event that happened to some people, ie escaping a local flood. The story of which got passed on from generation to generation and people to people,transformed along the way, until it became fixed in the bible.

More likely it was based in fact. Robert Ballard found inundated villages about 100 meters down in the Black Sea indicating a catastrophic flood some 7,500 years ago when the Mediterranean overflowed the Bosporous. To the locals on the gound it would have appeared that the "whole world" was flooding and thus the story.

Even the Australian aboriginees have a "global" flood story that dates back thousands of years before the first missionaries showed up.

Kinda funny how science keeps verifying these Biblical "fairy tales" too.

It could have been round, but I don't understand what difference does it really make these days?

Noah should have smacked one of those mosquitos.

Really? Science proved that God killed all humans but saved Noah? That Noah was able to carry two of every (terrestrial ones, anyway) and animal in the ark to repopulate the world, cause there was no evolution, right?

They've also just discovered some wall that indicates that Solomon's empire was a possibility - does any of this mean that the bible contains the literal truth, or that it's a collection of a people's stories they tell each other, some based on a factual event but distorted thru time, some just plain fiction?

More likely it was based in fact. Robert Ballard found inundated villages about 100 meters down in the Black Sea indicating a catastrophic flood some 7,500 years ago when the Mediterranean overflowed the Bosporous. To the locals on the gound it would have appeared that the "whole world" was flooding and thus the story.


How does this incident explain the Aboriginal myth that Public Animal referred to, or the Asian or American versions?

More likely it was based in fact. Robert Ballard found inundated villages about 100 meters down in the Black Sea indicating a catastrophic flood some 7,500 years ago when the Mediterranean overflowed the Bosporous. To the locals on the gound it would have appeared that the "whole world" was flooding and thus the story.


How does this incident explain the Aboriginal myth that Public Animal referred to, or the Asian or American versions?

After the peak of the ice age when the massive continental ice sheets began pouring into the seas global sea levels rose anywhere from 100 to 300 meters. It's no surprise then that so many coastal societies have great floods in their histories. In BC, for instance, it was once possible to walk most of the way from Vancouver to Victoria. San Francisco Bay was once a valley. The Great Barrier Reef in Australia in known to have been 130 meters lower than it is right now. The Mediterranean was far lower and when the Atlantic overflowed the Strait of Gibraltar the result would have been catastrophic to those people living along what was then the shoreline.

It is not a surprise that flood stories exist world wide because the end of the ice age had global effects.

Really? Science proved that God killed all humans but saved Noah? That Noah was able to carry two of every (terrestrial ones, anyway) and animal in the ark to repopulate the world, cause there was no evolution, right?

They've also just discovered some wall that indicates that Solomon's empire was a possibility - does any of this mean that the bible contains the literal truth, or that it's a collection of a people's stories they tell each other, some based on a factual event but distorted thru time, some just plain fiction?
Oh quit being so glib, science has proven there was a FLOOD. And I seriously doubt that evolution could make up for the loss of all the varieties of life in 7500 years, since evolutionists keep telling us it takes millions of years. But that is besides the point. HOw many other "historical" documents that were taken as fact have been shown to be way off base, simply because the victors wrote the history. How much history have we been taught that was actually not correct, or at least embellished but taken as absolute fact?
You are also forgetting one other major important thing when referring to the Bible, specifically the more ancient parts of the Old Testament. It has been translated from a translation, from a translation, from a translation, from a language that what, a half dozen or so ppl can read or understand these days?
The problem with that, as it goes through one translation after another is, meanings get lost or confused. It even happens when you try and translate between modern languages today. Oft times a phrase or term in one language loses its power or meaning when it gets translated into another language.
Let me elaborate, my mom who was a very devout Christian, and I used to get into friendly arguments about the Bible. The story of Jonah and the Whale is a prime example. My mom kinda liked to take the Bible literally so she got a little uppity when ppl referred to the "whale". That's because the Bible says, "And God prepared a great fish for Jonah..." Now, that begs the question, how do we know that ancients didn't refer to whales as big fish? They lived in the water like fish but were real big, and I'm pretty sure that they hadn't reached the level of knowledge we had when it comes to species and genusus(genusii?)
To put it bluntly, the OT is JUST as valid a historical text as anything else written at that time.

The bible is NOT an historical document. The flood(s) may well have occurred that predate the writing of the bible, however the Noah story is most definitely a fairy tale to push the God myth.

Says the "medical professional" who thinks that belief in God constitutes a mental disorder.

Yes, but that same Science shows that there was no flood that covered the entire earth. There have been many floods who's history is preserved in flood myths. Not one universal one that covered the entire planet. So science proves nothing about the religious aspects of the bible, just that it contains historically accurate information. I'm not sure it is. What is your point here, vis a vis historical accuracy of the bible?
I'm not forgetting this at all, I completely agree with you. But that certainly isn't an argument for the inerrancy of the bible.
Again, I agree. From your original post I assumed you were one of the "bible is the inerrant word of god" boys. Because nobody has ever argued that the bible does not contain historically accurate information (as best we can determine). Doubt if even Dawkins or Hitchens would say that. Look at the Aborigine dream time myths, and I'm sure you'll find a lot of accurate info too, or the Upanishads, or take your pick.

The Bible is an historical document, but bear in mind that the history written in it is presented as perceived through the lens of Jews with a contemporary view of world events. Just because a history is viewed through a religious lens does not make it invalid.

Native American/First Nations oral histories have been found to have validity even though they were initially dismissed as mythologies.

It's been found that if Native American lore says a certain place is a bad place to visit or live, it's best to pay attention to the warning. Not because there's any hocus-pocus involved, but because the oral histories tend to pass on information about actual events in places that are prone to landslides, earthquakes, fires, floods, and etc.