He's actually correct. What proof do we have, other than The Bible, that Noah existed? And other than belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, how does that book prove that Noah existed any more than the Hindu vedas prove the existence of the invulnerable king Ravana?
Belief and faith do not require proof, and much of what we believe simply cannot be proven (which, inherently means, having evidence that cannot be disputed and would change the mind of a skeptic). It just is.
Sounds like the seminarian was being brutally honest, which is really a very important step towards full faith and belief, IMHO. It's a willingness to put trust in that which cannot be proven, that which cannot be shown to be 100% real. It is the admitting of real faith - faith that does not need concrete, irrefutable facts for its existence.
Being a chrstian (I assume), naturally you don't understand my point.
It isn't about "faith" at all. We KNOW the Torah is from G-d because of the revelation at Sinai, which is self-verifying--no "faith" involved. Once it is established that the Torah is from Heaven, we can then accept all its assertions as true and accurate on any subject whatsoever.
You are assuming that one accepts the Bible "on faith" or on its own authority. This would indeed be a logical fallacy, as all books that claim divine inspiration would then be equally acceptable. Once we accept G-d's external authorization of the Torah, we then on His authority know that all its assertions about historical events not only constitute "proof," but surety, that they actually happened.
Of course, if you're a Catholic it's all a big Aesop's fable anyway. Priests even pray at mass for G-d to accept their "sacrifice" as He accepted those of Abel and Malki-Tzedeq--whom they don't even believe existed. This is called a tefillat-shav' and is actually a great sin.
The "inerrancy of the Bible" is not only based on faith but on the authority of eyewitness accounts, fulfilled prophecies, and historical fact.
With respect to Noah, these are the words of Jesus Christ:
"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be ~ Matthew 24:37 (KJV)
He also mentioned Abel, another pre-Flood historical person:
"From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation." ~ Luke 11:50,51 (KJV)
The Hindu vedas? You mean their "Good Book" of writings which teach multiple deities? Who are their eyewitnesses to their teachings? Can Hinduism back up any of its prophecies? From what authority do they speak?
Your argument that neither the historical account of Judeo-Christian Bible or Hindu Vedas can be validated or discredited depends on which "truth" and eternity you seek.
Couple of quick points.
Variations of the Noah story have made it down to us from Sumerian/Akkadian literature (Atrahasis/Utnapishtim). They are extremely old. The Flood is typically dated somewhere around 3000 B.C., which is right around the time that writing developed in Mesopotamia. So it is very likely that the Flood happened in a literate society--and it is mentioned as a historical event, quite in passing, in the Sumerian King List. We are not talking a vague oral tradition from time immemorial here, but an event that could well have been observed and recorded.
Also, the Hebrews and their West Semitic ancestors were very much plugged into Mesopotamian civilization. They had access to its libraries and texts right down to the end of the Babylonian captivity. In fact, before the decipherment of cuneiform, almost all we knew about that civilization came from the Bible.
Quite aside from its divine authorship, it is an invaluable source of history.