Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:
I'm wondering what people think about the Genesis flood, really the main question is whether it was local or global

---

quote:

---

if it was local, then why was the ark so huge,

---

quote:

---

if it was global, then does geology/biology/other science support this?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:
so the Bible's lying?

---

Posted                    

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:
so the Bible's lying?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:
I'm wondering what people think about the Genesis flood, really the main question is whether it was local or global.......if it was local, then why was the ark so huge....?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Or maybe it's the veracity of people who interpret the Bible as saying there was a global flood who need to be questioned?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

The Bible exagerates the extent of the flood inorder to make a theological point - why not also exagerate the size of the Ark?

---

I suppose because I'm a biblical inerrantist at heart

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:

quote:

---

The Bible exagerates the extent of the flood inorder to make a theological point - why not also exagerate the size of the Ark?

---

I suppose because I'm a biblical inerrantist at heart

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:
so the Bible's lying?

---

I also believe that the Bible is absolute truth.

But I have always been told that rather than being literal these early bible stories are intended to be understood as symbolic.

I was told that the flood was a flood of evil. Noah and his family represented all those who survived it. The ark and the animals describe how they survived and what survived. The dimensions and details give specific information about this - revealed in a way that made sense to the ancient mind.

The fact that there are similar stories almost everywhere in the world testifies to the universality of this ancient method.

But in the Bible it is all true and straight from the mouth of God - every jot and tittle.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:
so the Bible's lying?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
If we have to believe in the flood, do we have to believe in tales of talking donkeys and snakes too?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
And the talking donkey story can't be tested against geological evidence....

Reader Alexis

---

My personal religious questions are more centered on the existence and nature of God. If God exists and is good, She may or may not have created everything (one way or another!), made a donkey speak, come among us and rose from the dead. Her nature is the most important thing.

If She exists and is evil, then none of that other stuff matters, true or not. Her nature is the most important thing.

If She doesn't exist, then we're Home Alone. (like the movie). Oh-oh...

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
- imagine 4 men trying to move a tree to make a keel for a 450ft boat let alone shaping it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:
so the Bible's lying?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I think that much of the OT is non-literal which is NOT the same thing as saying that it's lying. Christianity (and Christians) are so funny in their dualisms. For example:

If it's not literal, than it's a lie.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

However, the author of Genesis, however, seems to have taken it to be factual, not even letting the story "float" as some disconnected event in the past, but trying to stitch it into the timeline by genealogies. The Noahic flood may be a myth, but it's a myth that was relayed to us as history, so it will not do to simply say that it was never meant to be taken literally.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:

Hardly anyone today says about the Psalms that if it's not literal, than it's a lie. It's a genre understood both in its own time and today as non-literal, so the Psalms aren't charged with "lying" in the same way that Genesis is.

---

quote:

---

Hear, O LORD , my righteous plea; listen to my cry.
Give ear to my prayer - it does not rise from deceitful lips.

May my vindication come from you; may your eyes see what is right.

Though you probe my heart and examine me at night, though you test me, you will find nothing;
I have resolved that my mouth will not sin.

As for the deeds of men - by the word of your lips I have kept myself from the ways of the violent.

My steps have held to your paths; my feet have not slipped.

---

And she said "That's about David?"

[fixed code]

[ 14. May 2003, 02:48: Message edited by: Scot ]

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

However, the author of Genesis, however, seems to have taken it to be factual, not even letting the story "float" as some disconnected event in the past, but trying to stitch it into the timeline by genealogies. The Noahic flood may be a myth, but it's a myth that was relayed to us as history, so it will not do to simply say that it was never meant to be taken literally.

---

Then the writer of Genesis (or perhaps more correctly the redactor) got it wrong.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:
I'm wondering what people think about the Genesis flood, really the main question is whether it was local or global.......if it was local, then why was the ark so huge, and if it was global, then does geology/biology/other science support this?

---

quote:

---

Far from being a solution to creationism's problems, the flood is a disaster. Consider biogeography. The ark lands on Ararat, say eight thousand years ago, and out pop the animals (let's be kind and forget the plants). we now have eight thousand years for the marsupials to find their way to Australia, crossing several large bodies of water in the process. Perhaps you can imagine a few energetic kangaroos making it - but the wombats? [And i would add - the marsupial moles?] from 'Born Again Creationism in Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics ed by Robert T. Pennock

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by markporter:
I suppose because I'm a biblical inerrantist at heart

---

Then don't be! God is bigger than that.
G.

--------------------
This entire doctrine is worthless except as a subject of dispute. (G. C. Lichtenberg 1742-1799 Aphorism 60 in notebook J of The Waste Books)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
To say that the author or redactor got it wrong IMHO is also wrong.

We are taking a 20th century "modern" (as opposed to post-modern) standard to evaluating whether the author/redactor got it right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

If you want to know if he/she "got it right", you gotta put yourself in the cultural/political/writing milieu of the time.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
To say that the author or redactor got it wrong IMHO is also wrong.

We are taking a 20th century "modern" (as opposed to post-modern) standard to evaluating whether the author/redactor got it right.

---

No. The question is whether the author/redactor, by the standards of his (or her) own time, would have been wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

If you want to know if he/she "got it right", you gotta put yourself in the cultural/political/writing milieu of the time.

---

Indeed, and that task is neither ludicrous nor impossible. Difficult, yes, and at least as much of an art as a science, but doable.

"It's mythical" or "it's not meant to be taken literally" is sometimes used as a way to protect the Scriptures from being charged with being in error or wrong, especially by those of a more liberal bent. The trouble is, whether something is meant to be taken literally or not is a question of genre. Lack of historicity by itself cannot make something mythical.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
My personal faith survived because I had faith to fall back on, as opposed to just rationale and/or thinking. If I had been someone only geared to Christian Logic and Inerrantness, I would now be an atheist.

I am not alone.

---

No, you are not!

From an Orthodox POV one of the chief points of the Noah thing is that it is a prefigurement of baptism. Ditto for the crossing of the Red Sea, and Jonah's being swallowed and regurgitated by the large sea creature, whale, fish, whatever.

In order to do this work, i.e. to prefigure baptism, it is not necessary for ANY of these things to have actually happened.

Thus I remain blissfully agnostic about the historicity of them all.

Reader Alexis

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
As for the ark being huge its dimensions are exceedingly small if it was going to take a pair of every creature in the globe - a collecting task that would have taken hundreds of years for Noah to accomplish anyway. The story cannot be taken seriously as history. In this respect the problems of seeing it as literally true and historical far exceed the problems facing seeing Genesis 1 as literally true.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:

Well, it sounds like you have more faith in the abilities of humans, reaching backwards through time, with a tiny fraction of the comparitive data required since the books were either non-existent or long gone, and so on, to reach exactitiude than I do.

---

quote:

---

I am of a "liberal" bent at times and simultaneously have no desire to "protect the Scriptures" from being charged with error or not.

---

quote:

---

In fact I would say the conservatives try too protect the scriptures by declaring them inerrant.

---

quote:

---

We do the scriptures a disservice by removing the humanity from them.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I belive that account of the Flood describes a real historical event and that the author of it intended it to be read as history.

---

quote:

---

If they want to know how to live a good life, read the bible, or the Koran, or the Sutras.

---

Well, I would disagree with that one......firstly because of the lack of a capital "B" for Bible and secondly because I think that the only good life that can be led is from the Bible, and not from any other religious text, a truly good life is led in relation to the one true God, and not any other standpoint.

Posted                       

quote:

---

.....the interpretation of the history that is difficult to understand....we are not in the position that the writers were in to understand exactly what they meant by every word.

---

quote:

---

Well, I would disagree with that one......firstly because of the lack of a capital "B" for Bible and secondly because I think that the only good life that can be led is from the Bible, and not from any other religious text, a truly good life is led in relation to the one true God, and not any other standpoint.

---

Good catch on the Bible, that was a typo not a commentary.

We could start a whole 'nother conversation on whether the "one true God" manifests himself to different people, different ways. We could also start a whole 'nother conversation on the fact that millions of people live wonderful lives from other religious texts or even from agnosticism, or atheism. But that would deviate from your OP.

Suffice it to say, many Christians are gonna be surprised at how many people don't look like "them" in Heaven, High Heaven (Koran), or Nirvana.

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posted                          

quote:

---

We could start a whole 'nother conversation on whether the "one true God" manifests himself to different people, different ways. We could also start a whole 'nother conversation on the fact that millions of people live wonderful lives from other religious texts or even from agnosticism, or atheism. But that would deviate from your OP.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
A mentor of mine once said:

"I have no issue with Jesus being the Son of God, I just wonder why Christianity sometimes forgets the rest of us are Sons and Daughters of God, too."

I'm still thinking on that one.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:
It's amazing how many Christians are happy to take OT stories as allegory, but insist that NT stories are history.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
...
The problem is that the flood story is presented as if it were history. Now it may be that when the flood story was originally told, it was understood as just a story with a point to it. However, the author of Genesis, however, seems to have taken it to be factual, not even letting the story "float" as some disconnected event in the past, but trying to stitch it into the timeline by genealogies. The Noahic flood may be a myth, but it's a myth that was relayed to us as history, so it will not do to simply say that it was never meant to be taken literally.

---

• "it's a myth that was relayed to us as history" some mistake surely, since the original writers/redactors of Genesis were not writing for 'us'
• "the author of Genesis, however, seems to have taken it to be factual" the redactor's views on the extent of the factuality of the story are unknown - we can guess at them but concepts of history were different then to now ('history' is not a single timeless genre), so it is unclear what his attitude would have been. '"Ancient prose is generally meant to be taken literally; ancient poetry is given far more license"' is an incredibly vague rule which leaves us asking 'was it meant to be taken that way in this case?