|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Noah
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
He couldn't.
Of course, he couldn't. But He could.
I love that picture, too, Freddy. My household certainly never functions that orderly. Thanks for sharing.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
quote:
He couldn't.
Of course, he couldn't. But He could.
How, exactly?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
How could Noah clean up after the animals???
With his supernatural powers that God gave him, silly! If God is God, then the practicalities of an ark aren't going to stump him. If he can make oceans of water appear then disappear in order to flood the earth, a bit of animal dung would be easy-peasy. God could dematerialise all the difficult animals, like the 171,000,000 species of beetles, and all the pathogens, then rematerialise them after the flood, so Noah would only have to worry about the larger animals with shapes suitable for wooden toys. In fact God is so powerful that he could not actually have a flood at all but just kill everyone except Noah and family and make them and everyone since then believe that there had been a flood. Or not kill everyone, which is a pretty nasty thing to do, but let a story about 'What if God killed everyone? (almost everyone, naturally)' emerge into consciousness.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
I feel this thread is degenerating.........
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
How could Noah clean up after the animals???
With his supernatural powers that God gave him, silly! If God is God, then the practicalities of an ark aren't going to stump him. If he can make oceans of water appear then disappear in order to flood the earth, a bit of animal dung would be easy-peasy. God could dematerialise all the difficult animals, like the 171,000,000 species of beetles, and all the pathogens, then rematerialise them after the flood, so Noah would only have to worry about the larger animals with shapes suitable for wooden toys. In fact God is so powerful that he could not actually have a flood at all but just kill everyone except Noah and family and make them and everyone since then believe that there had been a flood. Or not kill everyone, which is a pretty nasty thing to do, but let a story about 'What if God killed everyone? (almost everyone, naturally)' emerge into consciousness.
If God's going to act supernaturally to overcome the limitations of the Ark, why bother with the ark at all? Why not just act supernaturally to preserve the required repopulators? Indeed, why bother with a flood at all? Why not just strike all the bad ones dead and be done with it?
Something doesn't add up here.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
If God's going to act supernaturally to overcome the limitations of the Ark, why bother with the ark at all? ... Indeed, why bother with a flood at all? Why not just strike all the bad ones dead and be done with it?
Something doesn't add up here.
Yes, indeed (I think that hatless was making the same point using irony).
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
I feel this thread is degenerating
Don't feel that way, Mark. Many threads tend to wander into somewhat different territory, but it all generally relates back to the OP. Your original question about the flood -- local or global -- just naturally led to discussion of literal vs. nonliteral interpretation of the Bible. So many questions -- so many opinions! The flood question is just one small piece of the mystery of Noah. Continue to ask your questions and listen to the responses of others. It may not change your beliefs, but it will make you wiser and stronger to be exposed to beliefs other than your own. There is great knowledge here, and people who are true students of Christianity. So keep asking your questions... and hang on!
"And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence..." I Peter 3:14,15
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
Other problems with literalism about this story include:
- Did Noah take in single pairs of clean creatures or seven pairs? (Gen 7:2,3 vs 78,9 )
- When exactly did Noah go into the ark? 7 days before the rain (7:1-5)? On the day the rain started (7:10,13)? Befoe either of these 6:18,22
- When did the waters abate, and how long did that take (the confused chronology of 8:2-6 in particular and 8:13 and 14 too)
Problems with the flood being local include: - If Mount Ararat was covered (7:19,20?) or even just up to its neck in water then the water level would have been up at near the 5165 metre mark (about 16,000 feet) - the height of Ararat. There just isn't a geographical basin that deep in that region which would be able to surround the water and localise it. It would spill over to the Mediterranean and Indian Oceans and so could not reach 5000 metres without those seas also reaching that level - which means a worldwide flood of at least 5000 metres depth.
Problems with it being global include: - If it was global, where on earth did all that water come from?
- If it lasted over a year (the chronology in Genesis is inconsistent) then I can't see many plants surviving under several miles of water, with the lack of light and the intense pressure, to name only two problems.
- Pity poor Noah collecting an average of 30 to 40 species a week for 500 years and keeping them ready to hand for all that time ready to go into the ark. Is he the patron saint of zookeepers, by the way?
- How did the sea fish survive the drop in salinity? Or the freshwater fish the relative increase in salinity?
- And just how did those marsupials know how to head for Australia and not settle down anywhere along the way?
The more one looks at the story the more one becomes aware just how much we have learned about how big the world is since the time this was written, how diverse life is, about the distribution of species on the planet, about geology. Please! This is a story of its time, don't lets pretend it is history pure and literal!
Glenn ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
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)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
... (Hebrews 11)
...(Ephesians 4)
Start here.
quote:
In response to Glenn Oldham's quote ... about where to start having "that sort of faith". I guess I just don't find it so hard to believe that it's spelled out fairly simply.
Well I do think that it is spelled out fairly simply too, but I think that the idea of always having to take the bible literally complicates things rather than making it simpler!
G.R.I.T.S., I appreciate your various posts after the one I responded to so I realise your position is much less simplistic than it at first appeared to me.
I was going to have some fun and say something like "Start here, with Eph and Heb you say? I am sorry, it is too late I realised that one has to start somewhere so I have started by having faith that God speaks pre-eminently through the inspired pages of the British childrens' comic The Beano and I am going to naively have that faith 'no questions asked'. My magnum opus The Beano Code co-authored with my friend Colin will show how Dennis the Menace and Minnie the Minx both predicted most of the history of the 20th century." ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
You have to start somewhere, but unless you are prepared to ask questions you stand little chance of learning anything or moving closer to the truth. I am pleased to read your comment in your recent post " Continue to ask your questions and listen to the responses of others. "
Best wishes,
Glenn
--------------------
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)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Forgetting the 'Did ithappen?' stuff, isn't the point, well one of them, of the flood story, for Christians, that a holy God cannot tolerate ghastly, contingent, partial, sinful, fleshly, unholy people? A holy God, we might imagine, ought really to get thoroughly wound up and blast those dreadful humans. A Karcher Pressure Spray of global dimensions should do the trick (and clean up the nasty moss on the mountains at the same time).
But, say we Christians, there is another story. A holy, but loving, God, looked on the dreadful humans, wicked and wilful to a woman, and decided not to do away with them and this horrid gone-wrong creation, but to mend it! The holy (but loving) God entered the world as one of the dreadful humans, and started fixing things. [Does anyone remember the film 'The Fixer' starring Alan Bates, I think - long, long ago.] Not starting afresh, but making do. [This is fanstastic news for most of us!]
Jesus is the alternative to the flood, and the Church is the alternative to the ark - not a liner for the few worth saving, but a raft for the flotsam and jetsam to pile on to.
I think the ark is what these days we call a thought experiment.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I agree completely with Glenn. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Glenn, I really appreciate the detailed list of difficulties with a literal view. The fact that every difficulty is easily brushed aside by reference to God's omnipotence does not, in my opinion, help us make sense of this ancient and beautiful story. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
To my mind it is absolutely essential that the why's and wherefores of these things MAKE SENSE. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Yet I believe with all my heart that this story, like others in the Bible, comes directly from the mouth of God - by means of those who composed it, repeated it, wrote it down, copied it, preserved it, and eventually published it in its current, permanent, form. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I also believe that it must fit into a systematic pattern of information that contains and explains universal truths about religion - a pattern that can be discerned through the cultural and time-bound vessels that express it.
Of necessity, the topic has to relate to God's essential desire for the human race, which is to bring it into heaven, or into happiness, and therefore to the contest between good and evil, truth and falsity, light and darkness, happiness and unhappiness. ![[Love]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
The only reasonable alternative, to my way of thinking, that preserves this story as a wholly divine part of God's Word, is to appreciate its deeply symbolic nature, and to see how this is echoed throughout the Bible.
A story like this is of a different nature than the biblical miracles, which have other rational explanations. A thinking Christian can believe in all these things, in my opinion, without simply relying on uncomprehending faith.
I believe that we can choose a rational acceptance as the best and most fruitful of many competing reasonable views. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree completely with Glenn.
Except for the stuff you were writing while I carefully composed the above - about hearing God "pre-eminently through the inspired pages of the British childrens' comic The Beano and I am going to naively have that faith 'no questions asked'."
Harummmph! ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree completely with Glenn.
Except for the stuff ... about hearing God "pre-eminently through the inspired pages of the British childrens' comic The Beano and I am going to naively have that faith 'no questions asked'."...
I am glad to hear that you don't agree with that bit Freddy because I was wrong! After seeing the stubble on my chin this morning I have taken that as a sign that I must convert to The Dandy (another British kids' comic) and become a follower of Desperate Dan. I shall now have some cow pie for breakfast.
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I am greatly relieved. I feel that you have made a wise choice.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
[ I shall now have some cow pie for breakfast.
On the train to work this morning it occured to me that our local supermarket now sells green eggs. OK, it is only the shell that is green, but a little colouring will fix that. I rarely eat ham, but I am sorely tempted.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
Green eggs and ham, Ken! Excellent!
But have I sent the thread on a tangent? ![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif) Quick, let me think back 40+ years. Yes! There next to my family's Dr Seuss books is our little Noah's Ark and its flat wooden animals! So we are back on topic after all! ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Well I do think that it is spelled out fairly simply too, but I think that the idea of always having to take the bible literally complicates things rather than making it simpler!
Perhaps it's just a right/left brain kind of thing. I think those of a scientific/mathematic ilk simply MUST have reason and logic behind every premise they believe. I am that way with most things in life, but not with the Bible. Maybe that's because I know I could die an unhappy old woman, never being able to "prove" even the simplest of scripture. I find much security and peace in knowing that I don't have to do that. Not because I don't have the interest or the knowledge, but because I know that, no matter how much study or research I do, He has already said that "...My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways..."
quote:
I have started by having faith that God speaks pre-eminently through the inspired pages of the British childrens' comic The Beano...
I wondered where you were getting some of those cockamamy ideas of yours!
quote:
Jesus is the alternative to the flood, and the Church is the alternative to the ark - not a liner for the few worth saving, but a raft for the flotsam and jetsam to pile on to.
While I don't agree with all you say, hatless, I certainly say "Amen" to this. And aren't we thankful for His ship?
And, Freddy, I always appreciate your posts. You have a very angelic nature to your writing. I know your congregation is blessed you have you leading them.
Remember, men:
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding..."
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding..."
I know.....I keep getting that told to me, especially by females....and then sung it in church the other day as well.......
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
I know.....I keep getting that told to me, especially by females....and then sung it in church the other day as well.......
How funny! So maybe some of it is a male/female thing, as well as a right/left brain thing? I just know it brings me a sense of contentment to know that I don't have to have it ALL figured out.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I agree with Freddy. For the story of the flood to be true, it doesn't have to be true as a literal piece of history. The Black Sea may have been a freshwater lake before the cataclysmic seismology of the Eastern Mediterranian, which occurred some 4-6 thousand years ago. Parting seas, columns of smoke and fire can all be signs of intense seismology as is known to have taken place in the Eastern Mediterranian at a time which wiped out the Minoans os crete with a tidal wave.
The great genius of Hebrew scripture was in how it wove these old legends into it's national canon and ascribed a spiritual meaning to ancient events. God saved Noah and his in the flood. He led the people of Israel through the sea. If we listen to Him, He saves us all from the flood, and parts the sea to lead us into His kingdom.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
Parting seas, columns of smoke and fire can all be signs of intense seismology as is known to have taken place in the Eastern Mediterranian at a time which wiped out the Minoans os crete with a tidal wave.
The great genius of Hebrew scripture was in how it wove these old legends into it's national canon and ascribed a spiritual meaning to ancient events. God saved Noah and his in the flood. He led the people of Israel through the sea.
I would take issue when we start referring to the events described for the Israelites as purely natural occurences.....firstly if Moses wrote the books (which I think he did) then he was actually there witnessing them....and secondly, although the broad ideas may fit natural interpretations, I don't think that a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night actually leading the israelites for many years can be just a seismic event.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
sorry for double posting.....
I think the same is true for all the other events, although perhaps there may be similar occurences in nature, you have to discard a lot of the biblical details if you are going to take them as such.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
I would take issue when we start referring to the events described for the Israelites as purely natural occurences.
I'm with you there. Miracles have divine, not natural, causes.
While it may seem fine to say that God used a natural event to lead and teach Israel, not every description of the so-called "miracles" lends itself to such an explanation. Sooner or later you need to either accept that they were real, or decide that there must be some other explanation, such as natural events, myth, etc.
Not to be "all or nothing" about it, but it seems odd to say that some of the described miracles are actually miracles, while others are mere sleight of hand.
I think if we understood what miracles are and how they work, and why they happened in ancient times (but not, in my opinion, today) we wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
Don't you think the essence of Christianity is faith? Simple, naive, no questions asked, faith? If our belief is based solely on what can be proven, either historically or scientifically, where's the glory to God in that?
I agree that the essence of Christianity is faith, but it is faith in God's goodness and love, not faith in the literal truth of the Bible.
I know and love the Bible. I have learned a great deal from it. I believe that God's spirit permeates it. I do not believe that stories like Noah's ark are literally true.
For that matter, it is clear to me that there are minor discrepancies in the New Testament accounts of Jesus.
Elsewhere on these boards, I have told of a lesson I did with my teenaged Sunday School class. We compared the four gospel accounts of Easter morning and listed the points where all four agreed. Here are the items from the list that I can remember; I may have forgotten one or two.
- It was the day after the sabbath
- It was early in the morning
- Mary Magdalene came to Jesus's tomb
- It was empty
- One or two young men or angels said that Jesus was not there, he had risen
- He/they gave a message to be given to the disciples
- The message mentioned Galilee
For me this is sufficient evidence for the resurrection; the details don't matter.
As far as I'm concerned, the details in the early part of Genesis don't matter.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
Remember, men:
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding..."
This verse can certainly be a comfort, but used constantly in all circumstances it is no help. For example: one can imagine the esteemed Rev Gerald Ambulances advice column going something like this:
- Dear Rev Gerald,
My heart and my faith have long told me that the Bible is without error, but, after reading it recently I realise that I can't understand how the Noah story can possibly be literally true. Can you advise me?
Yours, Connie.
Dear Connie,
Don't loose the faith you had! Just "trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding" (Prov 3:5)
Helpfully yours,
Gerald
- Dear Rev Gerald,
My heart and my faith have long told me that the Bible is certainly not to be taken as inerrant. But, after listening to a sermon recently I realise that I can't understand how the Bible can be authoritative even though it is not 100% accurate. Can you advise me?
Yours, Libby.
Dear Libby,
Don't loose the faith you had! Just "trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding" (Prov 3:5)
Helpfully yours,
Gerald
Glenn
--------------------
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)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
As far as I'm concerned, the details in the early part of Genesis don't matter.
I agree. But haven't you known people who have actually given up their religion because they could not come to rational terms with the details? In other words, if you can't prove all of it, I won't believe any of it. THAT'S what always concerns me about the picking and choosing of what is literal and true and what is not.
quote:
For me this is sufficient evidence for the resurrection; the details don't matter.
That was a wonderful exercise and exactly the type we do with our 7th and 8th graders. But don't you notice that every one of your points of evidence was based solely on what you read in the Bible? Then why wouldn't the author's testimony about Noah in Hebrews 11 be proof enough of that? See -- I just don't understand all these distinctions.
quote:
This verse can certainly be a comfort, but used constantly in all circumstances it is no help.
I don't know your astute Rev. Gerald, but I would label him a "cop-out" type if he did indeed respond as such. I hope it is noted that was the very last of my premises, not the very first nor the only one. It was simply an echo of what Moo says about reaching a point when the details are really not what my faith is hinged upon. (Pardon the prepositional ending there.)
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
But haven't you known people who have actually given up their religion because they could not come to rational terms with the details?
I know many people, myself included for a long time, who completely rejected Christianity because they associated it with beliefs like Creationism and a literal reading of the Bible.
In effect, by taking those attitudes you tie Christianity to things which, for most people, who don't already have a big emotional investment in taking a high view of the Bible, can be easily disproved.
That's the point at which 'reason' becomes problematical: if you make it all or nothing
'You have to beleive in Creationism/inerrancy or you're not a Christian'
'OK - I can't possibly beleive in the rubbish these so-called creation scientists are peddling, so I can't be a Christian.'
But many people are Christians who do not believe in inerrancy, and who have no problem grasping the different genres and differing degrees of historical reliability in the Bible, so it's unnecessary to create problems for people in this way by insisting that they must read everything in the same way.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
In my experience, inerrantists take
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding..."
and render it in practice as
"Trust in the Bible with all your heart, and rely implicitly on your own understanding of it... "
ISTM that inerrancy is entirely based on human understanding, and that at its core, it represents idolatory, in that it elevates Holy Scripture to a place that by right belongs to Our Lord and Saviour.
Whilst I would not suggest that all inerrantists are incapable of trust in God, ISTM that the inerrancy viewpoint is a major stumbling block to trusting in God, in that it has a marked tendancy to divert people's trust to something other than God.
I know several people who became Christians, had inerrancy impressed upon them, and trusted in that viewpoint without ever learning to trust in God directly. They have all since rejected their faith.
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Anecdotal evidence is not "proof" of anything.
I feel comfortable with my Christianity including Genesis as symbolic. G.R.I.T.S. feels comfortable with her Christianity including inerrancy of the Bible. I have not once seen her posting anything derisive on these boards about anyone else or any one else's religion. Yet because she believes in the inerrancy of the Bible some people feel comfortable calling her beliefs idolatrous or poking fun at how unscientific it is to think God created the Noah flood.
There are thousands upon thousands of people who find comfort in a Bible that is inerrant. They find Christian faith and Christian fellowship through a belief in the Bible as God's direct word to humankind.
Because your faith is different than theirs and you feel you have the forces of science and logic on your side you feel comfortable either attacking G.R.I.T.S.' beliefs or trying to convert her to a right way of thinking. Would you feel comfortable doing the same for a Methodist? An Anglican? How about a Catholic? Or would you, having stated your viewpoint about religion in a discussion with someone of those faiths, move on to another topic? Is there something so fatally attractive about converting G.R.I.T.S., or proving her wrong?
Frankly I have read some pretty rude posts here directed at G.R.I.T.S. She seems to be able to take them in a more Christian spirit than my fellow liberals seem to be able to muster towards her.
If you want to say something have the decency to make your point like Moo did. Try to treat someone else's belief as worthy of respect.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
Louise and Ham'n'Eggs, I do understand what you're saying, although I have to be honest and say that I just can't relate to it.
quote:
In effect, by taking those attitudes you tie Christianity to things which, for most people, who don't already have a big emotional investment in taking a high view of the Bible, can be easily disproved.
I have no doubt that the reasoning you would use to "easily disprove" things would strike me as ludicrous and much harder to believe than any explanation recorded in the scriptures, i.e. the creation. I am not an unlearned yokel; I know all the theories, science and research related thereto. They always read to me like the ultimate in science fiction, coincidence and happenstance, requiring much more naivete to believe that the Biblical account. Why? Because one must rely on unbelievable acts of nature that could have happened only in the most remote of circumstances, if at all, and one simply relies on believing God could do it just the way the Bible tells it.
quote:
I know several people who became Christians, had inerrancy impressed upon them, and trusted in that viewpoint without ever learning to trust in God directly. They have all since rejected their faith.
Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus, understanding and acceptance of salvation, and faith in God. Just as I believe no one comes to the Father except through Jesus, I believe no one can come to the truth without the Bible. By discounting the validity and sanctity of the scriptures, how do you find your way? I think part of the lessons of faith that God wants us to learn is being able to release all that we think we "know" about reality and reason, and give some credence to His omnipotence. If we limit Him in one respect, what's to stop us from hacking away at every Biblical precedent?
No one has yet to offer an explanation of who it is that decides and how it is decided what in the Bible is real and what isn't. Is it all open for personal interpretation? Is everyone really OK with that? If so, then how do you go about teaching others about Christianity with a guide book that is flawed and fluctuating? I agree that how it happened or whether or not it happened is, in the big picture, not really what it's all about, and I would not have a problem with someone choosing to believe that many OT stories were just that -- stories. I just don't see how that could not somehow seep over into the teachings of Jesus and the covenants of the NT. Where does the line end?
I'm not being a smart aleck: I really want to know how you do it. The response I'm expecting? Something along the lines of "just point them to Jesus". I suppose that would work, eh? Lift Him up, and HE will draw all men to Him.
Thank you for your thoughtful and personal responses, especially you, Louise. Nothing holds more respect for me than the testimony of someone who has come to Christianity from a position of nonbelief. I think that takes much stronger faith than the simple "maintenance" that so many of us practice.
(By the way, Ham'n'Eggs, I LOVE your sig -- it's one of my faves.)
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
I'm sorry to have offended you, Tortuf.
You are quite correct in that anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything. However, one's experience often has a bearing on the views that one develops. Mine comes to a large extent from seventeen years attendance of an Evangelical Free church, and the next seventeen years immersed in a Charismatic New Church. I had an inerrant viewpoint for years, and for me and for many of those I worshipped with, it was certainly idolatory.
My points were not directed at anyone specifically, but were addressing some of the content of the thread. They were my honest opinions, (which may well be wrong), as I think that I clearly expressed.
To put the matter into context, I personally think that almost every Christian has some idol in their life. The liberal may make reason an idol. The middle-of-the-road Anglican such as myself may make tolerance of all positions an idol. (I am doing my best to overcome the latter. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) I certainly wouldn't regard an unhealthy elevation of Holy Scripture as the worst of sins.
Are you seriously suggesting that to express a different viewpoint to someone else is to attack them, or to attempt to convert them to your viewpoint?
If didn't respect G.R.I.T.S. viewpoint, I would not be addressing some of the issues arising from it, and interested in her responses. She is calmly and clearly stating her case in a gracious fashion, and I would not deliberately set out to offend her. If she tells me that I have done, then I would naturally wish to rectify matters.
I see that you havn't been on the boards for long. I would hope that the Pig is usually ready to accept that he may be wrong on a matter. I have certainly apologised on many occasions previously, and no doubt shall do so in the future.
Best wishes,
H&E
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
I tried to post a reply to G.R.I.T.S. a minute or two ago but I was stopped by something called Flood Protection.
On this particular thread that was amusing. Then irritating!
Glenn
G.R.I.T.S., Rev Gerald is one of SOF's writers pseudonym's. Rev Gerald is very funny indeed, but his humour has a serious side to it as well. See him at Rev Gerald Ambulances home page on SOF
Glenn
--------------------
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)
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
quote:
I believe no one can come to the truth without the Bible
I have heard of several instances of cultures who have had a revelation of what they subsequently recognised on contact with missionaries was Jesus.
A notable conversion without knowledge of the Bible was Sundar Singh, the wellknown Indian evangelist. Jesus revealed himself to him in a vision when he was about to commit suicide.
In similar fashion, the Apostle Paul. No-one preached the Bible to him, and Jesus was directly against his reading of the Scripture!
So it is pretty clear to me that a life-changing encounter with Christ is not dependant on the Bible.
And the viewpoint that the Bible is some sort of Maker's manual seems to me to do frequent damage to the context, both textual and cultural. The Bible is not a list of "do this. Don't do that", rather a whole series of episodes in which people interacted with God, from which we can observe principles as to the way in which God interacts with mankind. The Bible tells me nothing about vast swathes of modern life, but an encounter with the breath of God behind it gives one an eternal context within one's culture.
The Bible nowhere refers to itself as being inerrant. It does however say that Scripture is "God-breathed". When the Bible was created by the early church in the Second Century, one of the criteria as to which bits went in or didn't make it was exactly that. It reminds me of listening to someone tell the story of their life. Some of us will have the hairs on the back of our necks stand up as we are aware of God's mysterious workings. Others will be left cold, as was Karl Marx, and Josef Stalin.
ISTM that it is the breath of God that works out His purposes, not the detail of the text.
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
By discounting the validity and sanctity of the scriptures, how do you find your way?
I wouldn't know, as I certainly don't. But what has this got to do with inerrancy? These don't automatically follow from not accepting the inerrancy of Scripture, a fact that a substantial minority of Evangelicals will vouch for.
quote:
(By the way, Ham'n'Eggs, I LOVE your sig -- it's one of my faves.)
The lady also has good taste.
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
But what has this got to do with inerrancy? These don't automatically follow from not accepting the inerrancy of Scripture, a fact that a substantial minority of Evangelicals will vouch for.
Actually, it's probably the minority of evangelicals who do accept biblical inerrancy.
But aren't we getting further from Noah?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
Louise and Ham'n'Eggs, I do understand what you're saying, although I have to be honest and say that I just can't relate to it.
quote:
In effect, by taking those attitudes you tie Christianity to things which, for most people, who don't already have a big emotional investment in taking a high view of the Bible, can be easily disproved.
I have no doubt that the reasoning you would use to "easily disprove" things would strike me as ludicrous and much harder to believe than any explanation recorded in the scriptures, i.e. the creation. I am not an unlearned yokel; I know all the theories, science and research related thereto. They always read to me like the ultimate in science fiction, coincidence and happenstance, requiring much more naivete to believe that the Biblical account. Why? Because one must rely on unbelievable acts of nature that could have happened only in the most remote of circumstances, if at all, and one simply relies on believing God could do it just the way the Bible tells it.
quote:
I know several people who became Christians, had inerrancy impressed upon them, and trusted in that viewpoint without ever learning to trust in God directly. They have all since rejected their faith.
Christianity is about a relationship with Jesus, understanding and acceptance of salvation, and faith in God. Just as I believe no one comes to the Father except through Jesus, I believe no one can come to the truth without the Bible. By discounting the validity and sanctity of the scriptures, how do you find your way? I think part of the lessons of faith that God wants us to learn is being able to release all that we think we "know" about reality and reason, and give some credence to His omnipotence. If we limit Him in one respect, what's to stop us from hacking away at every Biblical precedent?
No one has yet to offer an explanation of who it is that decides and how it is decided what in the Bible is real and what isn't. Is it all open for personal interpretation? Is everyone really OK with that? If so, then how do you go about teaching others about Christianity with a guide book that is flawed and fluctuating? I agree that how it happened or whether or not it happened is, in the big picture, not really what it's all about, and I would not have a problem with someone choosing to believe that many OT stories were just that -- stories. I just don't see how that could not somehow seep over into the teachings of Jesus and the covenants of the NT. Where does the line end?
I'm not being a smart aleck: I really want to know how you do it. The response I'm expecting? Something along the lines of "just point them to Jesus". I suppose that would work, eh? Lift Him up, and HE will draw all men to Him.
Thank you for your thoughtful and personal responses, especially you, Louise. Nothing holds more respect for me than the testimony of someone who has come to Christianity from a position of nonbelief. I think that takes much stronger faith than the simple "maintenance" that so many of us practice.
(By the way, Ham'n'Eggs, I LOVE your sig -- it's one of my faves.)
I too find it find it hard to get my head round where you are coming from. But indeed as Tortuf says your view is shared by many Christians and in fact, it's also the predominant way in which Muslims relate to the Koran and in which Orthodox Jews would look at the Torah, so it's worth trying to come to grips with it.
For me, having grown up with an interest in astronomy, palaeontology etc. besides ancient history, I was long familiar with arguments about dating of fossils, distances of stars etc. and also with the way in which most cultures had creation myths with which they would put forward their theology/their experiences of the world around them.
I was pretty shocked when I went to university and encountered people who were pushing Creationism, it made me write off Christianity as something backward and dangerous which was best avoided and which seemed to hit at many of the things which I most loved and enjoyed and was most fascinated by.
I became a Christian by discovering a sudden talent for and interest in Church history, which led me back to looking at how people's faiths underpinned their lives. I went through a terrible and unexpected time of failure and personal problems and had this very strong sense of being 'upheld' and guided by God which brought me back to church and a conviction of Jesus as the Resurrection and life. My conviction about the Bible was that it was important as one of my two points of contact with Jesus - (the other being prayer/worship). However it was written a long time ago by people in a very different world talking about their many different experiences of God and Jesus.
And that was fine by me. It was no surprise to me as a historian that ancient people would see the world differently and express their beliefs about God differently. What was crucial to me was trying to get to the heart of Jesus's message of love, justice and life. To me, literal belief in all the stories in the Bible as literally true was simply not what Jesus was about. The books of the bible were written down by ordinary human beings who were inspired to write about their relationship with God/beliefs about God. Taken together they give a picture of how people experienced God, but they were not written to give an accurate scientific picture of the world.
In certain places they clearly contradict what is known about the natural world. Now you can either come up with endless theories to try and explain away why certain things in the Bible don't match up with what we know of the natural world, or you can accept that certain books aren't meant to be read literally, and yes, it is up to you, you have to make that judgement, nobody else can make it for you.
I personally come out very strongly against creationism and inerrantism in the modern world because I see them as the intellectual equivalent of a new Dark Age in which we'd abandon hundreds of years of remarkable discovery because it felt more comforting to do that, than to face the questions and challenges that new discoveries have brought up.
I think it's worth looking at what inerrantism has done to Arab culture - which was once the most scientifically advanced in the world and which clung to inerrancy of the Koran when Europe and America embarked on one of the most powerful periods of critical thought the world has ever experienced. I'm sure inerrancy can be a good thing for individual people but I don't see it as a good thing in the world as a whole.
It's a long way from Noah, but I hope that explains a bit where I'm coming from.
To borrow Auntbeast's nice sign off
All good things,
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from G.R.I.T.S. quote:
But don't you notice that every one of your points of evidence was based solely on what you read in the Bible? Then why wouldn't the author's testimony about Noah in Hebrews 11 be proof enough of that? See -- I just don't understand all these distinctions.
I'm not sure I understand you here.
I had the teens compare the work of four different authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, describing events which had taken place thirty-five to sixty years earlier.
The author of Hebrews, in speaking of Noah, was referring to something that happened more than a thousand years earier, if it happened at all. It is a story worth reading and pondering, but I don't take it literally.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
Wow. I leave to go to a wedding, come back, and all heck has broken loose.
Firstly, I have not been offended by anyone, although Tortuf is quite the Knight in Shining Armor, isn't he? I thoroughly enjoy the exchange of ideas here, and if I didn't, I wouldn't be here. I'm a very secure type, with a very l-o-n-g fuse. Nothing much upsets me. And how could I get upset with people who are ultimately trying to sail up the same stream as I?
Thank you, Louise. I knew yours would be a tale worth telling. I will still struggle with how you can have such a strong belief and faith in Jesus and His life as told in the Bible, and yet not have the same literal belief in the OT and its stories.
Your "Flood Protection" story was funny, Glenn. I'm glad you were able to swim on through.
Mr. Pig, you have been most gracious. The Christianity you describe seems to be based on much emotion and feeling -- not bad things at all. Isn't it funny to use logic to discount a literal interpretation of the Bible and yet speak of mystical communication with Jesus? I just feel I need to know about Jesus in order to know Jesus. But that's just me. And, come on now -- don't you really think that Paul/Saul knew the scriptures like the back of his hand? Trained and taught in the best Jewish schools, sitting at the feet of Gamaliel... Paul knew the Bible.
And, Moo:
quote:
I had the teens compare the work of four different authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, describing events which had taken place thirty-five to sixty years earlier.
The author of Hebrews, in speaking of Noah, was referring to something that happened more than a thousand years earier, if it happened at all. It is a story worth reading and pondering, but I don't take it literally.
But surely that's not how you decide? If something in the Bible refers to something else in the Bible that happened a REALLY long time ago, we don't have to believe it. I can't believe these scriptures, which we all seem to agree are God-breathed, would even make reference to an event, give detail about it and commend it, if it didn't really happen.
Mr. Creswell, you are right on. I guess Noah is just a jumping off point for the basic discussion of "inerrancy" (I really don't like that word, and I hope you notice I haven't used it). I will cease and desist after this post.
'Night, all.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... aren't we getting further from Noah?
Just to keep Noah in the picture from time to time (though I am enjoying the parallel line that has emerged in this thread) how about this:
Where did the water come from for the flood? If say half of it came from the atmosphere then that would mean there was enough water vapour in the air to condense to liquid which would be 2 and a half kilometres deep. Now a person with 2.5 km of water above him would not be able to withstand the huge pressure on him. But just because the water vapour is in the atmosphere doesn't stop it weighing the same as it does when it is water (it is less dense, yes, but the molecules weigh the same). Thus the atmospheric pressure before the flood would have been enough to kill everyone before it rained including Noah.
If, on the other hand it all came from the 'fountaisn of the deep' - well that poses even more problems, but I must away ...
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
I think that the fountain of the deep is the better picture of the two.....the water canopy doesn't really seem to make physical sense.....and the arguments would be along the lines of the fact that the mountains etc. were raised up after the flood....there's a verse in there somewhere....so all the water today is actually all the water used then.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Surely the only plausible answer is that it was miraculous water that miraculously disappeared after the flood.
None of this could have happened without continuous miracles from beginning to end.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from G.R.I.T.S. quote:
I can't believe these scriptures, which we all seem to agree are God-breathed, would even make reference to an event, give detail about it and commend it, if it didn't really happen.
I can believe it.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave the Bass
Shipmate
# 155
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.
I can't believe these scriptures, which we all seem to agree are God-breathed, would even make reference to an event, give detail about it and commend it, if it didn't really happen.
Jesus told many parables. Does anyone have problems with the notion that he made up these stories? What is important is what they tell us about God, and how he relates to us. Why can't we apply the same idea to the story of Noah, and other parts of the Old Testament? The important question is not whether these things actually happened, but what we learn about God from them. Our faith is in the God behind the story, not in the story itself.
Posts: 2162 | From: In a forest | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
I think that the fountain of the deep is the better picture of the two.....the water canopy doesn't really seem to make physical sense.....and the arguments would be along the lines of the fact that the mountains etc. were raised up after the flood....there's a verse in there somewhere....so all the water today is actually all the water used then.
I see, so your idea here would go roughly like this: that the land was created as in Gen 1:9-10 by gathering the waters into seas. It seems that you theory is that the land so formed would be very very very much flatter than today. As a result the amount of water needed to cover the whole globe would be much less because we wouldn't need the 5 to 8 kilometres depth that we would need to do the trick today. Then after or during the flood a huge amount of mountian building went on.
This gives us two problems: - Gen 7:19 says that 'the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered' The mountains were already there or had been formed by the height of the flood. If the flood covered mountains then the amount of water needed is too huge to be accounted for.
- There is simply no geological evidence for mountain building on such a global scale occuring in so short a time.
If we revert to trying to find a source for the 5 - 8 kilometres in depth of water for a global flood we have problems too. If the waters came from chambers supplying the fountains of the deep then the chambers holding enough water would have had to be of such a colossal size that they would be equivalent to a chamber 5 to 8 kilometres deep under the entire suface of the globe.
- What drove the waters out of those chambers?
- why did the chambers emptied of water not collapse causing catastophic earthquakes and crustal collapse?
- where did the water go afterwards? Back into the chambers?
- If so why have geologists (so good at spotting oil wells) not found these enormous deposits of water?
The sheer weight of water in a 5 kilometer deep flood would have created a pressure of 15 tons to the square inch and killed all the plants. If it lasted for a year the result would have been utterly cataclysmic. The only branch the dove would have brought back would have been a mangled and dead one. It would have been worse than a nuclear winter by far.
The whole story is just not feasible as a literal history unless you want to take it that God did it all miraculously and then removed all evidence of the catastrophe afterwards.
The simpler explanation is that it did not happen - not as written at least - and that what we have here is not history.
Why is it, by the way that some Christians need the Bible to be inerrant to get value out of it whereas they would never dream of saying 'The works of Shakespeare!? Worthless, of course, because they are not inerrant!'
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Jesus told many parables. Does anyone have problems with the notion that he made up these stories? What is important is what they tell us about God, and how he relates to us. Why can't we apply the same idea to the story of Noah, and other parts of the Old Testament? The important question is not whether these things actually happened, but what we learn about God from them. Our faith is in the God behind the story, not in the story itself.
Sorry -- I'm compelled to respond. The parables were never presented as anything other than stories told by Jesus to illustrate a lesson, and I would never try to teach them as factual accounts of actual happenings. However, I find no indication, either in the OT story itself or in the many NT references to it, that Noah and the flood was just a "story". Christ Himself talked about the flood just as pointedly as you and I talk about the Holocaust. There are also many references to Noah in kirect conjunction with Daniel, Job, Abraham, Moses, and on and on. Did none of these great men exist? Did none of the marvelous adventures of the OT occur? How do you teach these things to your children?
Sorry for the tangent, but (to borrow one of those awful phrases from the "Christian words we could do without" thread) God spoke to me all morning about this. As I prepared the Bible class material for our summer church camp, I realized the second lesson was on Noah. After class was over this morning I was picking up the room. The paper I picked up was a student's study sheet from school on, yes, Noah. I read both lessons thoroughly and was peacefully reassured that it all still reads the same to me as it always has -- just like REAL history... only better.
But, whatever the "truth" might be, my faith IS in the God behind the stories, and I believe He is the God of the living, as well as the transcendental.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
Actually, Glenn, it seems that the descriptions given make a lot more sense when you realise that the author of Genesis was clearly describing a flat Earth, rather similar to the Babylonian cosmology. And the origin and destination of the required water are no longer such a problem.
For a detailed exposition of this, see The Flat Earth Bible.
I find it surprising that the majority of inerrantists do not believe that the Earth is flat, as the Bible clearly uses the language of a flat-earth cosmology. There are some around however, and they are rather interesting people.
Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society.
Application form for membership of the Flat Earth Society.
Despite the usual opprobrium heaped on them, I think that they are truly attempting to take the Bible literally. It seems to me that many inerrantists who say that they do, in fact do not.
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
me feels that someone is taking the mickey.... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
but apart from that, I think that the flood story is a lot more explicit, and the flat earth stuff is implicit (if it's really there at all) and can be taken as metaphorical in a way which something presented as history cannot.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
It's a bit simplified but maybe this summary from religious tolerance.org on differing views of the flood might be helpful.
Noah
By comparison here is Deucalion's flood the equivalent Greek myth.
It's common for ancient societies to treat myths as if they were history and sometimes they even try assigning dates to them - take for instance The Parian marble which even tries to give a date for Deucalian's flood and the reign of the mythical Athenian king Cecrops.
Now suppose all the Greek myths were gathered up with Greek histories, biographies, philosophy and devotional texts and stuck into one book. There cheek by jowl you would find mythical people like Deucalion and real people like Aristotle. You would find things that actually happened like the battle of Marathon and things which were fantastic stories but which didn't actually happen, like the labours of Heracles, but they would be no less valuable and cherished for that. You'd also find real people like Alexander the Great talking about mythical people like Achilles, as if they were real historical characters.
Now the liberal view of the Bible is similar - it sees the Bible as a huge collection of different sorts of documents having different purposes. Some are teaching through myth, some through poetry, some through history.
The Noah story contradicts what is now known about the natural world so much, that most people who study the natural world and its processes would say that it definitely cannot be history (see all the comments above!), so they would say that it's more like the labours of Heracles (a myth) than, say Athens' wars with Sparta (something that happened). Hence people's views differ on the matter. It's one of the sort of matters which we usually discuss on our Dead Horse board because people rarely, if ever, shift their views one way or another on it, but at least people can explain their views a bit more to each other
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
But the author of the passage would probably have understood what he was writing as history, as it seems to be written in the terms of the world-view then current, which included beleif in a flat Earth.
There are plenty of people who take the mickey out of Flat-Earthists. However, the latter are quite serious about their beliefs. My father has met a number of them, particularly in Scotland. And he couldn't fault their argument - if you take the Bible literally, then you have to believe that the Earth is flat. Because the authors of the Bible believed that it was flat, and they make frequent reference to it.
There is nothing in the Bible that would suggest otherwise. The verse about "the circle of the Earth" sits in harmony with the widespread Sumerian/Babylonian understanding of the Earth being flat and circular. ( See this picture of how they would have understood it. )
--------------------
"...the heresies that men do leave / Are hated most of those they did deceive" - Will S
Posts: 3103 | From: Genghis Khan's sleep depot | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
