> My proposal was that there are in fact two source documents behind the single
> Flood story we have in Genesis 6:11-9:17 today. The earliest source was of a
> local Flood and the later sources was built upon and expanded out into a
> cosmic salvation history epic.
>
> Under this proposal, to those who insist that it was a local Flood, I will say
> "You are right!" And to those who insist that it was a global Flood, I will say
> "You are right!" That is, you are *both* right. It was *both* a local *and* a
> global Flood!
>
> This proposal, if true, would go a long way to answering all the intractable
> problems of the Flood. There is no way to prove it, but it is the only model of
> the Biblical Flood that I know that is consistent with *all* the facts.
>
> I would welcome *constructive* criticism.
My constructive criticism of this proposal is that you seem to be
playing with the definition of "was". You are claiming that it WAS a
local flood and it WAS a global flood, but your arguments (which I agree
with, by the way) only establish that it WAS a local flood that was
exaggerated to make a point. So it really was NOT a global flood, it was
only embellished in the biblical account to seem like one. All in all,
though, this is by far the most reasonable claim I have heard you make
on this list, and it strikes me as essentially correct. There was
undoubtedly a real flood that prompted the biblical flood story (and
probably all of the similar ANE flood myths as well), and it was likely
mythologized in the biblical account to make a point (a point that is
still made, as you note). But that does not mean that it really was a
global flood; it means quite the opposite.
Ed