Rem,
You wrote: If what you say is true about the Epic of Gilgamesh and this meteor, then it seems that the Gilgamesh account is more accurate than the Bible.
I don't think so. If the flood was caused by a series of meteor impacts as the Gilgamesh Epic seems to indicate, those impacts most likely did not occur until Noah and his crew were safely closed up inside the ark. The Genesis flood account probably recounts the eyewitness testimonies of Noah and one or more of his family members, as passed down to the Hebrew people for many generations and finally consolidated into one account by Moses. Thus, their recollections could not have included any mention of the meteors which filled the skies right before the flood began. However, some in adjoining lands which were not totally destroyed by the flood, as Noah's land was, would not only have survived the flood but would have been in a position to witness and recount both its cause and effects. They would, no doubt, have also heard the story of a man in a flood-devestated neighboring land who managed to survive the flood by being forewarned by God to build an ark. However, since the writer of the Epic of Gildamesh was not an eyewitness to the events which transpired in the land of Noah, and since he probably heard Noah's story only after it had been corrupted by several retelling, it certainly makes sense that he ended up getting several of its details wrong.
You wrote: Why were the birds taken along in the supposed ark if it were just a local event? (Good question, Gweedo)
Genesis 7:3 plainly states that the reason Noah took all the various kinds of birds on the ark was to keep their kinds alive throughout the land. The Bible tells us that while Noah's land was being flooded it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, presumably quite hard. It is doubtful that any kind of bird would have tried flying through such a downpour. They would have waited for the storm to let up before taking off in search of a dryer place to live. However, before that storm let up Noah's land was completely flooded. Though Noah's flood was not global, it probably looked that way to those on board the ark. From what I have read most advocates of a local flood believe the waters covered well over 3,000 square miles, an area about 60 miles from west to east and about 100 miles from north to south. If Noah had not taken the birds of his land onto the ark and somehow some of them managed to avoid drowning until the rain let up enough to fly away, how many of them would be able to fly those distances without taking a rest on dry land? With such things in mind, I tend to believe it was necessary for Noah to take birds onto the ark in order to preserve alive all the different kinds of birds in his land.
However, it may be asked, "Why was it necessary for Noah to take any kinds of animals onto the ark to preserve their 'kind' alive in his land?" After all, few, if any, species of animals were then indigenous only to Noah's small part of the world. Certainly once Noah's land dried somewhat, it soon became populated with the same kinds of animals coming from other lands which Noah took onto the ark. So then, why was Noah instructed to take all of the different kinds of animals in his land onto the ark? Again, I can only repeat my belief that Noah did so because God intended him to prefigure Jesus Christ, who the Bible tells us "sustains all things." (Hebrews 1:3)
You wrote: Whether any flood happened or not, the Epic of Gilgamesh is still just an old myth. The same is true of the Bible's story(stories) of the flood. It doesn't matter if a myth is based on real events - it's still a work of fiction. It's not an inspired account from god.
You might try preceding such statements with the words "I believe."
You wrote: It seems to me that since you accept Evolution and that the first chapters of Genesis can be taken figuratively, why not take the flood legend figuratively as some sort of lesson?
So far as evolution goes, I do not take Genesis figuratively. I take it quite literally. For it does not say that God "created" vegetation or animal life. It says that "the land produced" both. (Gen. 1:11,24) Besides, the Bible's story of Noah has all the earmarks of an actual historical account, including providing its readers with chronological information enabling them to firmly date the event to 2350 B.C. I do not believe that the writers of scripture intended us to understand the story of Noah as pure fiction and intended for it to only be taken figuratively, as some sort of a lesson. If they had, I do not believe they would have dated it in the same way that they dated many other events recorded in the Bible, events which they obviously intended to be understood as actual Jewish history.
