[Dog Gone]

No, but I think Christians who are not open to the suggestion that Noah's Flood is an allegory have a challenge in defending it as a literal account. Christians believe in many other things in the bible as being symbolic or allegorical, but quite a few insist that the story of Noah must be entirely fact.

I try never to attack anyone for their personal religious beliefs, unless you happen to be a moslem who thinks Allah wants you to kill me. And to the extent I've done that on this thread, I apologize. I should have restricted my comments more to the fact that I used to believe the literal account of Noah's Flood, but no longer do. Nor do I think which side you come down on the issue is particularly important to God. It's an irrelevant side issue to the important things.

[dartuser]

"No, but I think Christians who are not open to the suggestion that Noah's Flood is an allegory have a challenge in defending it as a literal account."

The creation science movement has been quite successful defending this since the time of Darwin.

"Christians believe in many other things in the bible as being symbolic or allegorical, but quite a few insist that the story of Noah must be entirely fact."

Very true, but only where the text is obviously meant to be taken symbolically ... we can read parts of Revelation and we see the imagery, language, and genre as one that obviously requires applying a different eye. But the account in Genesis uses plain language that doesn't require allegorical interpretation. It describes simple events that are understood plainly. If it reads plainly, why try to make it say something that is not plain.

Im curious, what evidence did you come across to make you give up your literal interpretation of the flood?