|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Noah
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
It seems to me that you are taking "God-breathed" to mean "literally true in the sense that a 21st Century scientist would understand truth". Is this the case?
You know, I guess I just don't think God was writing with 21st century scientists in mind, or I'm sure He would have been much more detailed and boring in His explanations. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) However, that being said, might I be so forward as to recommend a book by a theologian, a Princeton graduate. It's entitled, "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications" by Drs. Henry Morris and John Whitcomb. You might find it enlightening.
Let me ask how we feel about the following quote:
"The Genesis account of the great flood is not an embarrassment for the Christian. We are not saddled with a contradiction between the established facts of science and the words of the Bible. Rather, we have one more set of objective evidences that the Bible is indeed inerrant, not just in matters of faith and practice, but in all disciplines including geology and history.
Does all this evidence for a regional flood mean that the Genesis flood was not universal? Not at all. Let me reiterate; the Genesis flood certainly was universal in that it destroyed all mankind and the animals associated with his livelihood except those on board Noah’s ark. Only in the twentieth century has “universal” been synonymous with “global.” Global citizens, global corporations, and global wars are unique to this century." (Hugh Ross, Ph.D.)
As I stated in an earlier post, I can live with the concept of a local flood with the understanding that all and everything was relating to the known world at that time. I have to admit making such concessions makes me a bit queasy. It's like saying I don't think God can accomplish His purposes in any way He chooses.
quote:
As it happens I do believe the Bible should not lead into falsehood (though it may contain "lies" within it - there are loads of bits of Scripture which, like parables, do not require the events portrayed to be actual historical events).
Once again I must reply that the parables and other "lies" you refer to are not presented as factual accounts. They were preceded by declarations that a story was about to be told. There is no such precedence for the flood account nor any of the NT references to it.
quote:
Questioning has to begin , and has to continue. If you are not questioning your interpretations of Scripture, if you are not trying to read intelligently and reflectively, then you will be just repeating the opinions of whatever the traditions of your local church are. And like all other churches those traditions will drift away from the truth. We need to engage with the Bible intelligently in order to stay within the truth.
The only tradition I practice is Bible study. When one studies only from the scriptures, with a few selected study guides and reference books (none with an "issue" flavor or influence from other theologies) there is nothing to cause drift. Why is it you all feel intelligence can only be gleaned through human sources? I see much pride in these posts -- pride in personal knowledge, pride in diplomas, pride in articulation, pride in (what we call in the South) "book-learnin'". I personally think God is really turned off by "Tower of Babel" types who think they know too much to be snookered by a simplistic faith. (No offence, Ken. You have certainly not presented that way. Your post just generated a rant that had been building. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
quote:
It is analogous to the Bible's instructions to us to test the prophets. We're told this again and again, and we're given a number of different rules to use to test the prophets (that is anyone claiming to teach in the name of God) Most famously Deuteronomy 18.21:
quote:
-------- --------- ---------
You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken.
--------- --------- ---------
This is about Old Testament prophets claiming to predict the future. But the general principle - like a lot of OT principles - may still be applicable in our Church age. We have to use our own eyes and our own intelligence and look at the world around us. If we see that what a prophet or teacher has told us is actually true, is really happening, then maybe they are from the Lord. If, on the other hand we don't see it, if the message is not true, then it is not from the Lord.
I prefer the NT counterpart to this: "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which ou received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the favor or men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ." (Galatians 1:6-10)
quote:
If we think the whole created universe - the stars, the galaxies, the rocks under our feet - are just such a stage set, flats, a backdrop to the action; why should we believe that God Incarnate was real either?
My reason for choosing to believe the events of the OT are as real as the NT. Why should Christ and His life hold any more truth for me than Noah and his life? (Not speaking to salvation, of course -- just reality, factuality, etc.)
The remainder of your post, ken, sounds sadly like someone who has succumbed to the thinking of the world. It sounds like you have very little respect for Christianity, or at least, for Christians who choose to practice their faith in an elementary fashion -- simply reading the Bible and believing in it. I do appreciate your use of scripture, and it's funny that those are some of the same scriptures I would use to confront someone trying to undermine the validity of the Bible. Viva la personal interpretation, huh?
And for Glimmer (congrats on the promotion!) I would just say -- DON'T EVEN GO THERE WITH ME! Don't you think God has a hand in any of this? Do you think He'd allow a picking apart of His Words to the point that there was no rhyme or reason to it? If I believed that what we have isn't complete (at least to the point of faith and salvation) and God-breathed, what WOULD be the point?
I must go -- dinner time for the family.
[long strings of hyphens edited]
[ 01. June 2003, 14:01: Message edited by: frin ]
--------------------
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
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
Let me ask how we feel about the following quote:
"The Genesis account of the great flood is not an embarrassment for the Christian... Global citizens, global corporations, and global wars are unique to this century." (Hugh Ross, Ph.D.)
It's called "begging the question". Ross has also redefined the terms he's using, which is, frankly, cheating.
quote:
The only tradition I practice is Bible study. When one studies only from the scriptures, with a few selected study guides and reference books (none with an "issue" flavor or influence from other theologies)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:
Why is it you all feel intelligence can only be gleaned through human sources?
You're confusing intelligence with knowledge, which, if I were being cruel, would appear somewhat enlightening.
quote:
I see much pride in these posts -- pride in personal knowledge, pride in diplomas, pride in articulation, pride in (what we call in the South) "book-learnin'". I personally think God is really turned off by "Tower of Babel" types who think they know too much to be snookered by a simplistic faith.
Pride is not good, but I'd rather be proud of "book-learnin'" than pig-ignorance.
quote:
My reason for choosing to believe the events of the OT are as real as the NT. Why should Christ and His life hold any more truth for me than Noah and his life? (Not speaking to salvation, of course -- just reality, factuality, etc.)
Because the witnesses to Christ were recorded near-contemporaneously with the events themselves. The witness to Noah has at least two problems:
1. It's recorded an unknown period of time later. The provenance of the story and even its antiquity are entirely unknown. This is a problem, but would be uncontroversial without this:
2. There is a body of empirical evidence that mitigates against it. This isn't the same sort of evidence as that which mitigates against the resurrection: there is no evidence that the resurrection didn't happen, only the philosophical idea that resurrection can't happen. In the case of the flood, there is evidence that strongly suggests that it did not happen.
quote:
The remainder of your post, ken, sounds sadly like someone who has succumbed to the thinking of the world. It sounds like you have very little respect for Christianity, or at least, for Christians who choose to practice their faith in an elementary fashion -- simply reading the Bible and believing in it.
I'm not poor Ken, who is obviously beyond redemption, but I too have succumbed to the thinking of the world. I've noticed that, on the odd occasion, when something has struck me as being difficult to comprehend or outside of my immediate experience, my first move has not been to reach for the bible and see what it says about it. Why, even this morning, when my train was late, I succumbed by going and asking the stationmaster why this was the case instead of thumbing a concordance for possible solutions, or perhaps consulting a fine, completely unbiased commentary or two.
Perhaps there's hope for me, perhaps not. Perhaps I'll get Alzheimer's and forget everything I know. Will I be saved then?
[ 28. May 2003, 00:04: Message edited by: David ]
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Fogive me for not bothering to read through the rest of this thread. Here's my 2ps worth (two cents for our American friends).
The story of Noah is a story inspired by God.
It has meaning which is not at a first read apparent. It tells of a God who want's to rid the world of sin. Who tackles his quest by eliminating the sinful people, he looks around and can find only one family that are worthy of saving. Surely, God thinks, if I kill all the rest then this fellow Noah and his offspring will populate the world with less sinful types.... so pit a pat down comes the rain etc.
But...
After the rain has gone God, who thought he had had such a wonderful idea, sees the destruction which he has caused, and he realises that sin will soon be rife in his world again, and he vows not to use this method ever again.
Some other, better way has to be found to free the world from the power of sin......
It's a made up story. But God put it there for a reason. God never thought about drowning humanity, but he points out that there is a need for a better Way to be found, and as we know, the way he chose was to demonstrate his love by becoming part of his creation and suffering alongside us.
Looked at this way, this story has a deeper meaning which will be completely missed by any literal interpretation. How sad for those who close their eyes!
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
You're confusing intelligence with knowledge, which, if I were being cruel, would appear somewhat enlightening.
I used the word "intelligence" because it was the one used in the quote. I am not confused, and I don't think you mean to be cruel.
quote:
Pride is not good, but I'd rather be proud of "book-learnin'" than pig-ignorance.
And this is where the rubber meets the road, isn't it? You consider acceptance of the Bible as a truthful accounting to be ignorance, as apparently does "poor ken". (By the way, thanks for your help putting words in my mouth. You were able to make me sound so much more condescending, which was exactly what I was after.)
quote:
The only tradition I practice is Bible study. When one studies only from the scriptures, with a few selected study guides and reference books (none with an "issue" flavor or influence from other theologies)
(Followed by your sweetly snickering smilie.) This was my attempt at a polite way of saying I'm not influenced by what others have concluded to be their interpretation of the Bible. Yes, it's good to know what others think, and I believe you can learn something in any situation. I respect others views, and I just want to know why they believe what they do. But, in turn, I would hope to receive the same restrained patience with my opinions, as well. So far, I feel as though I should be expecting PMs laced with anthrax.
I'm glad you were able to figure out why your train was late, David. Tell me, though -- where would you have searched for answers if your train had crashed? Surely the Bible holds some relevance for you. I believe it has secrets that are yet to be uncovered, and I never pick it up that something new is not revealed to me. It is "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword... and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart."
Thank you for your thoughts... and for holding back on the blatant name-calling.
--------------------
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
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
I used the word "intelligence" because it was the one used in the quote. I am not confused, and I don't think you mean to be cruel.
No, the quote used the phrases "to read intelligently" and "engage with the Bible intelligently". Nothing about receiving intelligence from any source. So yes, you are confused.
quote:
And this is where the rubber meets the road, isn't it? You consider acceptance of the Bible as a truthful accounting to be ignorance, as apparently does "poor ken".
I consider that unquestioned acceptance as a truthful account is, by definition, ignorance. Worse, it's willful ignorance.
quote:
(By the way, thanks for your help putting words in my mouth. You were able to make me sound so much more condescending, which was exactly what I was after.)
No charge.
quote:
The only tradition I practice is Bible study. When one studies only from the scriptures, with a few selected study guides and reference books (none with an "issue" flavor or influence from other theologies)...
Followed by your sweetly snickering smilie.) This was my attempt at a polite way of saying I'm not influenced by what others have concluded to be their interpretation of the Bible. Yes, it's good to know what others think, and I believe you can learn something in any situation. I respect others views, and I just want to know why they believe what they do. But, in turn, I would hope to receive the same restrained patience with my opinions, as well. So far, I feel as though I should be expecting PMs laced with anthrax.
etc etc etc. Because you left out the only bit of my post that actually dealt with the issue-at-thread, I'll have to direct you to this Dead Horse for any further discussion on inerrancy.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
I used the word "intelligence" because it was the one used in the quote. I am not confused, and I don't think you mean to be cruel.
No, the quote used the phrases "to read intelligently" and "engage with the Bible intelligently". Nothing about receiving intelligence from any source. So yes, you are confused.
I meant the word intelligence as opposed to the word knowledge. You said I was confusing the two. Sheesh... you're so literal.
quote:
I consider that unquestioned acceptance as a truthful account is, by definition, ignorance. Worse, it's willful ignorance.
Does this apply to everything for you, or just the Bible? Just asking...
quote:
etc etc etc. Because you left out the only bit of my post that actually dealt with the issue-at-thread, I'll have to direct you to this Dead Horse for any further discussion on inerrancy.
(Sighs) I just love an authoritative man. So please allow me to revel in my ignorance by closing with this well-worn adage, which will, however, bring me back to the OP.
Everything I need to know I learned from Noah's Ark:
1. Don't miss the boat.
2. Remember that we are all in the same boat.
3. Plan ahead. It wasn't raining when Noah built the Ark.
4. Stay fit. When you're 600 years old, someone may ask you to do something really big.
5. Don't listen to critics; just get on with the job that needs to be done.
6. Build your future on high ground.
7. For safety's sake travel in pairs.
8. Speed isn't always an advantage. The snails were on board with the cheetahs.
9. When you're stressed, float a while.
10. Remember, the Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
11. No matter the storm, when you are with God, there's always a rainbow waiting.
See, I can be so much more than just ignorant. I can be downright hokey, as well. Good night, gentlemen.
[more long hyphen strings edited]
[ 01. June 2003, 14:05: Message edited by: frin ]
--------------------
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
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
I personally think God is really turned off by "Tower of Babel" types who think they know too much to be snookered by a simplistic faith.
G.R.I.T.S, that is the most polite "rant" I've ever heard on The Ship. Honest and sincere rants are valuable tools in communication because it is where the most truth is revealed. I wondered when you were going to come right out with this.
I am exactly the sort of person that you theorize turns off God. To me, a "simplistic faith" that leads a 21st century person to believe myths from 30 centuries ago as historical truth is repellant. Not because I know too much, but because I value the Truth above all else. The earth is neither born on the back of a turtle nor was it flooded by a God who drowned all animal life except for one boatful. Science and reason clearly point me in that direction.
You asked earlier on how on earth anyone with a belief in any part of Christianity can take it apart, discern myth from legend from exaggeration from metaphor, as if these were impossible things to do. It is difficult as first, but then it is easy. This is exactly what our intellect is for. Not to elevate ourselves above God but to assist us on the path to Truth. I cannot believe that God is turned on by people who are willing to say, "OK God, if your Holy Book says that you killed all animal life by drowning, but saved a few in a big boat, that's fine by me. You're God and you're big and you're powerful and who am I to question your Holy Word. They all drowned except for the ones in the boat. And I'll stick up for you if any 'Tower of Babel' intellectuals come along and say that human science says otherwise."
Why would that make God happy? I cannot believe that there is a God who is happy because you are sticking to your guns amongst a bunch of 'Tower of Babel types.' I can believe that you are perplexed at where it would take you were you to alter your view of the world with the Old Testament as filled with instructive myths rather than historical facts. I can believe that you would think there is a God who would be displeased and that you would be floundering with no concrete guide for Goodness and Badness. Growing up in an Assemblies of God parsonage, I saw it all the time.
But others of us are comfortable in that mode. The thought of myths in the Old Testament is neither perplexing nor threatening. It is simply the Truth and we cannot duck it. Our world view is adjusted and we move forward in Truth.
P.S. I notice that I am one month older than you. Perhaps in a month you will feel differently.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
For Mr. JimT:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------
I personally think God is really turned off by "Tower of Babel" types who think they know too much to be snookered by a simplistic faith.
--------------------------------------------------
But do you really think God was pleased with the builders of Babel? I think not. Nor was He pleased when Job began to question His actions: "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?... Where were you when I..." and so forth. But don't tell me -- these events never really happened, either, right?
quote:
because I value the Truth above all else
You must mean "truth" in the universal sense, not in the Biblical sense. You'd make a good attorney, then -- there is an awful lot of that kind of Truth out there that is not in accordance with God's will.
quote:
The earth is neither born on the back of a turtle nor was it flooded by a God who drowned all animal life except for one boatful
Totally antithetical for me. One is in the Bible, one is not.
I am neither threatened nor perplexed by any of this. Do I seem to be? I am surprised and curious, at the most, but the Truth I have found is just as tangible, logical and intellectually sound to me as is yours to you.
You mention your Assemblies of God upbringing. I wonder if sometimes a negative or unhappy confrontation with a more fundamental interpretation can begin one on a path to find a more intellectually satisfying truth. I sometimes feel the things I say may bring back unpleasant memories for some shipmates who have, perhaps, turned to other beliefs in response to an experience which left them disillusioned about religion. (Just armchair philosophy -- no charge.)
quote:
I notice that I am one month older than you. Perhaps in a month you will feel differently.
I feel differently EVERY month about some things, being female and all , but not about this. I find that age has only brought more reassurance (no, it's not blind complacency, thank you very much), and my spiritual life is more challenging and enriching than ever.
I hope this wasn't too "Dead Horses", David. We did talk about the flood (see paragraph 5, above).
--------------------
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:
"The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications" by Drs. Henry Morris and John Whitcomb. You might find it enlightening.
Very enlightening. Tell me - have you ever read any mainstream science sources that deal with the claims made in this book? Because I have. TGF is the original PRATT* list. This page Here focusses on one or two of the arguments from the book.
If you are looking to Whitcomb and Morris for scientific support for anything, you will at least not want for moonshine.
*PRATT = Point Refuted A Thousand Times. Refers to creationist arguments that keep cropping up despite having long ago been shown to be nonsense.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Wow. You really have got it bad. Good to see you showing some real irritation, too.
In the myth of Noah, Noah is really just a prop. At best, he functions to tell children that their parents know more than they do and despite their parents displaying fearsome anger, parents are not to be feared because they are restrained from doing irreparable and permanent damage by love. It admonishes parents to keep this in mind as well.
No, the real focus is God. God, the supposedly perfect, is horrified that he allowed his anger to get so out of control that he nearly destroyed the most beloved part of his creation. One senses huge remorse and regret on the part of God when he sees what he has done. This is gripping coming from the source of perfection. He promises that he will never let it happen again and begs his creatures to restore the whole earth as quickly as possible. He had become so narrow in his acceptance of goodness that he wrongly thought there was only one good man. He was wrong. Again, this is gripping. God says he made a mistake? It is the only instance I can think of in the entire Bible. The story prefigures universal salvation beyond the Jews and underscores the universal brotherhood of humankind.
That's the way I see it.
This is a Tower of Babel? This is blasphemous? This is me acting as attorney for...well..."the side that does not promote God's will?"
quote:
I sometimes feel the things I say may bring back unpleasant memories for some shipmates who have, perhaps, turned to other beliefs in response to an experience which left them disillusioned about religion.
Almost perfect. The last word should be "fundamentalism." I am exceptionally disillusioned by it and your posts make me more so. The fact that you equate the word "religion" with your brand of fundamentalism speaks volumes. Who is more the attorney: one who exacts principles from the Bible or one who treats each word like The Law?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
Let me ask how we feel about the following quote:
... (Hugh Ross, Ph.D.)
OK, I'm not going to comment on the quote (BTW, where is it from?), but I find Hugh Ross an interesting fellow. He's founder and president of Reasons to Believe, who to quote from their statement of faith "believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings". I find it somewhat ironic seeing you quote Ross immediately after recommending The Genesis Flood given this quote from Ross
quote:
Here they ["scientific creationists" inc. Morris] are sadly misguided and ar misguiding many whose science education and biblical training are inadequate to aid them in evaluation. All of these "evidences" of youthfulness involve one or more of the following problems:
- faulty assumptions
- faulty data
- misapplication of principles, laws and equations
- ignorance of mitigating evidence
Ironically, these fallacious arguments, when corrected, provide some of the strongest evidences available for an old universe and an old earth.
( The Fingerprint of God 1989, p155)
I find it interesting that someone with a belief in Biblical Inerrancy such as Ross can nevertheless reject a Young Earth Creationist position on the basis of biblical and scientific criteria that I largely agree with (I perhaps should say I'm not convinced by the position he replaces it with which is an amalgam of day-age Old Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design). I'm not sure how he can reject the most literalistic reading on Genesis 1 and then still accept a global flood, it seems a bit inconsistent.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
Why is it you all feel intelligence can only be gleaned through human sources? I see much pride in these posts -- pride in personal knowledge, pride in diplomas, pride in articulation, pride in (what we call in the South) "book-learnin'". I personally think God is really turned off by "Tower of Babel" types who think they know too much to be snookered by a simplistic faith. (No offence, Ken. You have certainly not presented that way. Your post just generated a rant that had been building. )
Let me just assure you that considerable offence was taken, whether you meant it or not.
And was you going on about diplomas credentials and academic qualifications - you even mentioned Whitcomb and Morris! As if their theology PhDs made any difference to the respect I should give to their opinions on this matter (which is almost zero, as you know if you read the other thread on the yeccies)
However I'm calming down now because it is obvbious you never really read my posting.
[fixed quote]
[ 28. May 2003, 12:38: Message edited by: Scot ]
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
You consider acceptance of the Bible as a truthful accounting to be ignorance, as apparently does "poor ken". (By the way, thanks for your help putting words in my mouth. You were able to make me sound so much more condescending, which was exactly what I was after.)
No, he was much politer than you.
And I do accept the Bible as the word of God.
Read what I actually wrote, not what your heroes Whiotcomb and Morris said that people like me write. It is based in the Bible. Or look at those links that Alan and others posted.
By the way, there is of course a 3rd way of reconciling what we see in the world around us with the yeccy stance - it might be that someone other than God had faked it, some other powerful being. Maybe Satan, or some sort of mini-god of this world. This was a common opinion amongst the Gnostics of the first few Christian centuries (and possibly amongst Mormons?) But of course it would be completely impossible for Bible-believing Christians.
In Genesis God said the world he created was very good. He did not say "that'll fool the geologists!" or "there's one in the eye for the big bang boys!" or "your turn now Satan!", he said it was very good.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I find Hugh Ross an interesting fellow. He's founder and president of Reasons to Believe, who to quote from their statement of faith "believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings".
Yes, "Reasons to Believe" is very interesting. I'm not sure I agree with all they say, especially about "real" biology (i.e. genetics & ecology & systematics & so on, not the smelly molecular stuff) but it is a great read.
When I first came across it 3 or 4 years ago, I wrote: "Is this a Q-site? At first glance yet another semiliterate US creationist website, RTB actually offers serious scientific & historical discussion (& even some dissent!) as well as pointing out that the real problem with the young-earth so-called creationists & genesis-flood weenies is their unorthodox and unchristian attitude to God." (& my opinion hasn't changed)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glimmer
Ship's Lantern
# 4540
|
Posted
Personally I don't believe the Bible (in any of its translations and compositions) can be taken literally in all aspects. BUT I might be wrong. The story of the universal flood and all the animal species alive today living in the same boat does not square with worldly logic and experience, but if God can create everything out of nothing why not make things happen outside 'natural behaviour' (why would he consider that was the best way to achieve his plan?). How do I reconcile the two Creation stories in Genesis with the inerrant approach?
GRITS - sorry to make you angry but my question on Bible composition was without guile. I am inclined to take seriously many books which aren't in the Protestant canon (some I won't) because I don't know why and at what point they were excluded; presumably the 'excluders' would belive they were following God's wishes? Presumably those who originally included the books were also of the belief they were following God's wishes? I'm not trying to change your position, simply come to some understanding of it.
--------------------
The original, unchanged 4540.
The Temple area, Ankh Morpork
Posts: 1749 | From: Ankh Morpork, Dorset | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
GRITS - sorry to make you angry but my question on Bible composition was without guile. I am inclined to take seriously many books which aren't in the Protestant canon (some I won't) because I don't know why and at what point they were excluded; presumably the 'excluders' would belive they were following God's wishes? Presumably those who originally included the books were also of the belief they were following God's wishes? I'm not trying to change your position, simply come to some understanding of it.
No, I wasn't angry. Hopefully, I will never get angry in these discussions. I'm at just at the place where I believe that God certainly had a hand in guiding the creation of what we have compiled today as the Holy Bible. As I said earlier, I can't believe He would let it stand complete and unchanged all these centuries if there were more (or less) He wanted us to have. That wouldn't really be fair now, would it? Can't you picture Judgment Day?: "Surprise, everybody! No one picked the manuscripts in Cave #3, and those were the ones that were really important. Consequently, you've all missed the point entirely! Too bad. Your consolation prize? An all expenses paid trip to the Lake of Fire and Brimstone! Now off you go!" I know that, historically speaking, "man" did the picking and choosing, but as stated, I believe it was guided by the hand of God so that we could be presented with something of His choosing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
No, he was much politer than you.
I apologize, ken. My "call it like I see it" personna escaped temporarily.
quote:
Let me just assure you that considerable offence was taken, whether you meant it or not.
And was you going on about diplomas credentials and academic qualifications - you even mentioned Whitcomb and Morris! As if their theology PhDs made any difference to the respect I should give to their opinions on this matter (which is almost zero, as you know if you read the other thread on the yeccies)
However I'm calming down now because it is obvbious you never really read my posting.
I do apologize again. I guess I was just trying a different strategy. Half a dozen or more posts of being called ignorant must have triggered something aggressive in me. I realize now that there really is no way to make you understand -- proof from the scriptures makes no impression on you, nor do learned people with opinions other than yours. I didn't realize how sensitive everyone was about this. And, yes, I read all your post, ken. I would never do anyone the discourtesy of ignoring their thoughts. Granted, I may not always understand or agree, but I will always read. Trying to understand your position is very important to me.
And, Mr. Cresswell and Mr. Back-Slider, I agree with all the comments concerning the authors in question. One of the main reasons I rarely turn to books, commentaries, etc. Talk about flawed and fallacies. But there are people out there with lots of theories and ideas, and it's interesting to read them all. (Why am I finding myself to be the more open-minded about this?) I find your disdain and outright slander quite interesting, though, and that makes me more curious about what is generating it.
quote:
In Genesis God said the world he created was very good.
It is very good, ken, however it happened and however long it took, right? It makes me happy to always be able to come back around to the common ground. How terrible it would be to let our human preconceptions and adherences keep us from being able to keep our eyes fixed on Jesus. Seeing men become passionate about their beliefs and convictions concerning Christianity affirms that goodness to me. I am thankful for men like all of you who are seeking to have the mind of Christ.
Thank you for your post, JimT. I shall have to read and ruminate on it. Off to the office now!
--------------------
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
Slander? Slander is untrue. I stand by everything I say about the professional creationists.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
<tangent>
Karl, you wouldn't believe how irritating that avatar can get....
</tangent>
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
<tangent>
Karl, you wouldn't believe how irritating that avatar can get....
</tangent>
<Tangent>
I chose it to suit me.
</Tangent>
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider:
Slander? Slander is untrue. I stand by everything I say about the professional creationists.
As a hated attorney, let me confirm that unpleasant truthful things about people are not slander. Truth is an absolute defense. The so-called creation-scientists and their ilk are peddling bad science in service of an evil end, that is, forwarding the willful ignorance of large subsections of society. That they have at all succeeded is testimony to the crap-ass teaching that passes for science in American public schools. And frankly, if I had my way, all such peddlers would be forced to read good science until they were finally enlightened. Then they'd have to spend years educating people properly to undo all the damage done to children raised believing that Genesis was literally true, or that the flood had to have happened literally. The concatenation of bad science and biblical inerrantism is lethal to intellectual endeavor.
The earth is the Lord's and all that is therein. To properly understand it in all its wonders is the study of a lifetime, and the provocation of the deepest reverent wonder. IMHO, it is an insult to the Lord to have truck with untruth about the universe, to further a narrow human conviction that God must fit into little boxes of oyr designation.
If God somehow requires people to check their brains at the door, then he has failed to communicate that to me convincingly. And nothing I've seen here does anything but firm my conviction that this is so.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ham'n'Eggs
Ship's Pig
# 629
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
quote:
You seem to want to defend a literal account of the flood without it really having any down to earth nitty gritty physical reality to it at all.
quote:
Can I ask those to whom it is important that the words of the Bible are literally true, why? And are there any words in the Bible that are not considered literally true? I suppose that in the context of literal truth, which particular translation of the Bible is crucial?
Please, I don't intend to sound impudent. I would like to know what difference it makes that the Flood happened over ALL the planet earth, or only over the known world at that time, given that the Flood happened at all.
"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy ciyt, which are written in this book." -- Rev. 22:18
The Ship seems to be quite the harbor for those who practice adding to and taking away from the words of the Bible.
Given the severity of penalties which you are invoking for the offence, please would you point out exactly where people posting on the Ship are "adding to and taking away from the words of the Bible"?
--------------------
"...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
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
The Ship seems to be quite the harbor for those who practice adding to and taking away from the words of the Bible.
Oh, I missed that bit of patronizing, "I know the Bible better than you losers, look, St. John says you're going to be cut off of the tree of life" bit. Anyway, sticks & stones. Speaking for myself and a few others, I suspect, we do not "add and take away". We seek to understand, while not being obligated to leave our brains at the curb, where they might get squished.
[ 28. May 2003, 14:28: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by G.R.I.T.S.:
I realize now that there really is no way to make you understand -- proof from the scriptures makes no impression on you, nor do learned people with opinions other than yours. I didn't realize how sensitive everyone was about this.
Oooh, scratch my eyes out!
You really did get out of bed on the wrong side this morning didn't you? Or else why are you being so insulting all of a sudden?
I will say this to the others here - because I think I've lost you somewhere - that proof from the Scriptures does make an impression on me. That's why I've been quoting them.
To go back to the OP, the genesis flood ideas are not compatible with the Scriptures, or the God revealed in the Scriptures as incarnate in Jesus Christ.
As for "learned people with opinions other than" mine, what gave you that idea? and who are these learned people anyway?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Oh, and when did I call you "ignorant"?
I did say you were following the traditions of your church - not quite the same thing - which you denied by saying that you read the Bible in an unbiased way. Which is another discussion entirely of course.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
I'll even say that if there were to be empirically quantifiable evidence from a non-biased source suggesting that there had been a great world-inundating flood, I'd say, "cool", but it would not add or take away from my understanding or valuing of scripture. Nor would I suddenly think "it all must be literally true". Scripture is valuable and important, and inspired, whether or not the story of Noah literally took place as reported. None of the sources cited by inerrantists in these debates has ever been remotely unbiased or from people seriously educated in the field in which they're opining. So they might be educated in something-- so what? Lots of educated people have believed all kinds of nonsense over the ages. Why should we add to the tally?
[ 28. May 2003, 15:29: Message edited by: Laura ]
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Laura for Pope! Laura for Pope! ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) (Hereinafter to be abbreviated LFP).
Now excuse me, I have to take a Biophysics exam and spend some time in the Molecular Evolution Data Processing Lab with the other Assemblies of God orphan (Morgantown, West Virginia) who dedicated her life to research on the origin of life. Amazing what a thirst for real truth does when your religion required you to believe lies. You know what's kinda funny? I've given her my version of Biblical truth and she is amazed that I stuck with it at all. She might even read the Bible.
Not bad for an "attorney for Satan." ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
G.R.I.T.S - My first several churches were exceedingly evangelical and I was fed on a diet of creationism, inerrancy, sufficiency and literal truth. I mention this only becouse I believed this stuff myself untill quite recently. So, I really do understand where your "coming from". I came from there myself.
However, the rub of the matter is this. Something can be true without being literal, for example, a number of Aesop's Fables I would say were true or contained truth but are not literal. If the O.T. needs To be literally true in order to be credible - tough luck. We know as a matter of indesputable, scientific fact that a large number of the events portrayed in the O.T. never, ever, ever happened in any literal sense whatsoever. This does not mean that the Bible is untrue, just that is isn't always literally so.
For the record, I would say that the creationist liars (which, after all, is what they are) do far, far, far, far, far more damage to the faith then "worldly thinking" if the latter means agreeing with the truth. When I found out that some of the things I believed were B.S - well, my faith took a pounding tbh. I, and many more like me, would have been better off never to have believed this innerantist, creationist stuff in the first place.
I'm not angry at you per se - but I am angry that I was fooled for so long - resulting in my having an unrealistic faith and in convincing those I talked to about God that Christains are barmy, ignorant and intellectually dishonest. My faith would now be stronger, I believe, if my earlt teachers had had the integrity to teach me the truth about science etc.
Ben
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
Wow. Everybody seems to be ganging up on GRITS. Though I don't agree with GRITS on this topic (see several pages back where I do express my view), I feel I must point out a few things about the conflict here on GRITS's behalf.
1. One point of contention is epistemology: how do we know what we know? What methods do we use to acquire information, and when should we view the information so obtained as worthwhile or true?
For many Christians, the Bible is such a source. For scientists, experiments and observation on the natural world is such a source. Science and the Biblical narrative are sometimes in conflict. GRITS's point is that the Bible, being the word of God, is surely a more reliable narrative than scientific texts, being the word of man.
From this perspective, if the Bible says that if you drop a stone, it will not fall to the ground, then from this epistemology, we are to believe it even though we have seen stones drop many times. This is not "checking your mind at the door" but deciding which source of knowledge is to be ultimate. Perhaps this is not too different from those of you who believe that bread and wine can become the body and blood of our Lord, even though all scientific tests to the contrary seem to contradict this.
2. Some of you have mentioned the difficulties of interpreting the Bible. This is a good counter-argument to GRITS's claim that we must trust the Bible rather than people, because it shows that GRITS is using not only the Bible but a particular interpretation of it. Therefore, the real debate might center on which method of interpretation is superior in this case, realizing that all such methods are man-made.
3. These interpretations are rooted in the person's view of what scripture is and where it comes from. Some of you have compared the Noah story to other ancient stories from Babylon and India (earth on turtle). This suggests you believe that the Bible is a collection of myths like any other culture's myth collection. If so, it's not clear to me why you view the Bible as superior to these other collections of myths.
4. GRITS's view is not, as someone claimed, in the minority in the church, as far as I can see. Certainly in the US her view is the most prevalent, though this includes many people who perhaps shouldn't count in our survey (such as people who don't know much about science and haven't thought about the issue). It also includes almost everyone in the church for most of its history.
5. GRITS's point about "throwing out" parts of the Bible comes from a perspective of viewing the Bible as a source of truth. If you view one section as "not true", then for GRITS, this is essentially the same thing as removing it altogether, since it is no longer in your "collection of truth". Now as many of you pointed out, non-literal interpretations of the Bible may preserve your idea of it being "true". But your decision to view it non-literally solely on the basis of scientific evidence perhaps betrays your actual feelings on the matter--that you adjust your notion of "truth" only when you want to continue to claim the Bible is true even when you have stopped believing it.
6. That's not quite it. Of course, many of you did not come up with your interpretations of the Noah story on your own; you came to accept the one common to a certain community, perhaps because you resonated with it, or because you accepted the community first. And the way you talk about it is similarly derived at least partly from that community. The same with GRITS. The Churches of Christ (her community) has traditionally viewed the Bible as straightforwardly understandable through an explicit methodology of command, example, and inference in ways that are reminiscent of science (in fact it has its roots in Scottish Baconian rationalism). That also explains why GRITS is accusing many of you of twisting the Biblical interpretation from the plain sense.
Kevin
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Kevin, what do you hope to accomplish with your fence-sitting commentary? Your position is clearly at odds with GRITS:
quote:
I would prefer to find some way of thinking of the flood story as referring to an actual historical event and preferably for the details (which are argued about anyway) to somehow make sense once you see the details of the historical event. But that preference may be a character flaw in me.
Because I don't think that's what the purpose of the story is in Genesis.
You wish it would turn out to be an historical event. However, it may not be and besides that is not the purpose. You go on for dozens of paragraphs in three posts amplifying dozens of possibilites, none of which satisfy you completely. In the end, you simply don't know what to make of it.
quote:
So I must ask myself why God wanted the story there. And I just don't know.
This puts you at odds with GRITS. GRITS' position is that unless you treat Noah and all OT stories as historical fact, the meaning is lost and Biblical truth becomes completely unravelled.
What you are seeing is not "ganging up" but uniformity of opinion: the story is not literal historical fact, and does not need to be in order to derive meaning. You are a subset in that majority in that you agree it does not have to be literal historical fact in order to have meaning. None of your position is in accord with GRITS. Why the lecture on epistemology to those with whom you agree more? Why not argue that GRITS' insistence on historical fact is incorrect? That is your position, is it not?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
GRITS,
You have said on a number of occasions that you want to understand why some of us disagree with the literalist view of the story of Noah. Many reasons have been offered and I wonder if you are any clearer? Perhaps I can draw some of them together in a list of points each of which should be reasonably understandable. You may not agree with some (or any) of them, but I hope that they are understandable. You may feel that too much weight has been given to some things and not enough to others, but I hope you will see that our position is not incomprehensible.
1) If we take the story of Noah as literal history then we are faced with the problem that the geological evidence does not point to such an event as having happened, and the biological evidence does not fit with the described effects of the flood on wildlife.
A person who concludes that the scientific evidence points against the story being literally true is not guilty of bad scientific reasoning. It is a reasonable inference from the evidence. I will assume for the rest of this chain that the scientific evidence points against the story being literally true. Now there are those who disagree with this view but you will have seen enough on this thread to suggest why many of us accept it. Hopefully you have had enough said to understand this.
2) Having thus accepted that the evidence does not sit well with the literal truth of the Genesis account of the flood, we have to acknowledge the possibility that God, being God, could have caused the flood to happen as described, but then altered the geological and biological effects of the flood so that geological and biological evidence for its having happened no longer exists. Genesis doesn’t say that he did so, but he could have done.
3) So which alternative should we believe? We have concluded that the scientific evidence points against the literal truth of the story of Noah. But is the scientific evidence absent because the flood did not happen as described, or because God altered the evidence? We want to believe responsibly and not just because we feel like believing one view or the other so we ask: are there reasons from the bible and elsewhere which are strong enough to make it likely that (2) is true?
4) One reason offered for believing (2) to be true is, of course, that the bible is inerrant. If it is then the Noah account must be literally true, and so (2) must have happened. Now many reasons for viewing the Bible as inerrant have been put forward but, to be brief, many of us do not find them compelling. For example:
a) That the Bible says that it is inerrant. – Many reject this not just because it is reasoning in a circle (if the Bible contains errors then one of them could be that it says it does not), but also because the verses offered in support of this view do not provide strong enough grounds for claiming inerrancy.
b) That Jesus regarded the scriptures as inerrant and being God incarnate, could not be wrong about this. – This is too complex a question to deal with here but though the argument has been presented well by, for example John Wenham in Christ and the Bible it has been subjected to criticism, for example by James Barr in his Fundamentalism. So many of us conclude that Christ’s attitude to the scriptures does not necessitate our regarding the bible as inerrant. Again, you may disagree, but the point is that there are grounds for an alternative view.
c) That the Bible must be inerrant or it becomes so unreliable as to make Christianity unworkable. – This is the kind of all or nothing thinking that many of us regard as profoundly illogical. For example, as JimT has pointed out the grounds for believing the gospels to be reasonably accurate are quite different from the grounds available for believing a hugely much older story like Noah. I don’t have to believe in Arthur and Camelot to believe in Elizabeth the First and Francis Drake.
d) That God would not possibly give us a bible that was not inerrant because he would want to give us a reliable guide. – This is again all or nothing thinking. The Bible can be a reliable guide to what is essential without every story in it having to be literally historically true.
e) That no-one has proved that the Bible contains an error. – Even if this was true it might still be the case that large numbers of characters in the Old Testament, say, are fictitious, but since we have no other evidence about them we can’t prove it. But in any case, many of us find the explanations offered for apparent errors in the Bible deeply dubious and unconvincing.
5) As a result of the considerations in 4 and in the absence of any other compelling arguments for (2) we come to the conclusion that (2) is not well grounded.
6) To which we add further considerations such as that if biblical inerrancy is such a crucial doctrine and is true, why did God present the story of Noah in such a way that would lead us to expect geological and biological evidence of a particular kind to be left, and yet remove that evidence with the result that we are mislead into thinking that it did not happen as described? Why would he do that if it is so important to believe in an inerrant bible?
7) Finally, other cultures have legends about creation and other early events in their world pictures that are not that dissimilar to the kind we find in Genesis so it would fit with seeing Noah’s Flood as of that type of literature. As mainly legendary we would not be troubled by the absence of scientific evidence for its being historical. The fact that there are other grounds for not seeing the bible as inerrant anyway leads us to be unsurprised that Noah’s story is not historically true as described. The fact that many traditions within Christianity are not inerrantist also helps.
8) That is the kind of case that can be made for seeing the story of Noah as not literally historically true. For reasons of space and my bedtime, it is necessarily not in as full detail as is possible. You may not agree with the argument, but I hope that it helps you to understand, as you wished to, the kinds of reasoning behind why we draw the conclusion we do.
A brief word about psychology
A number of people have made belittling and speculative statements about the motivations behind peoples views on this issues. ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’, and ‘take out the beam in your own eye first’ seem applicable here.
To say that anyone who holds the opposite view must have sinful motivations is plainly false. They may do, but as far as motivation for rejecting the literal historicity of the Noah story goes, I hope that I have shown that a sincere search for the truth may lead one, not unreasonably, to that conclusion.
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
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
That's there some mighty fine book learnin' you've got a-goin' there Glenn.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
...
1. One point of contention is epistemology: how do we know what we know? What methods do we use to acquire information, and when should we view the information so obtained as worthwhile or true?
For many Christians, the Bible is such a source. For scientists, experiments and observation on the natural world is such a source. Science and the Biblical narrative are sometimes in conflict. GRITS's point is that the Bible, being the word of God, is surely a more reliable narrative than scientific texts, being the word of man.
... This is not "checking your mind at the door" but deciding which source of knowledge is to be ultimate.
2. Some of you have mentioned the difficulties of interpreting the Bible. This is a good counter-argument to GRITS's claim that we must trust the Bible rather than people, because it shows that GRITS is using not only the Bible but a particular interpretation of it. Therefore, the real debate might center on which method of interpretation is superior in this case, realizing that all such methods are man-made.
Your point 2 effectively does your point 1 in, Kevin. You show that you are aware that the idea of an 'ultimate source of knowledge' for us humans is not as coherent as your contrast in point one might suggest. We can't just assume that the Bible is God's word and to be interpreted in a particular fashion and expect to get away with it. The time that a fundamentalist can get accused of "checking their mind at the door" is when he or she exempts the view that the bible is inerrant from criticism. On what basis does someone come to the conclusion that the Bible, being the word of God, is surely a more reliable narrative than scientific texts, being the word of man? How can one arrive at a judgement about the nature of the bible without appealing to reason and experience? If we want to know if the bible records history then if the historical evidence tells aginst the account it gives then we need good grounds to overturn that evidence.
It is also misleading to say that 'scientific texts' are 'the word of man.' What scientific texts can say is hugely constrained by the evidence. A scientific text is not the word of man in the same way that a novel is. It has enormous research and sifted critical judgement behind it. In any case, humans wrote the bible, so if you insist on describing 'scientific texts' as 'the word of man' simply because men and women write them then you must call the bible that as well. Also, to the extent that science reflects the truth of nature and nature is the work of God, then scientific texts could be described as, in some sense, revelation of God.
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
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by David:
That's there some mighty fine book learnin' you've got a-goin' there Glenn.
I note that your accent matches your location in Redneck Wonderland, David. Which means that I, form my location, should say that I am much obliged for your kind compliment, sir. Or alternatively: Gawd bless yer me old cock-sparra!
G ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.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 Kevin Iga:
5. GRITS's point about "throwing out" parts of the Bible comes from a perspective of viewing the Bible as a source of truth. If you view one section as "not true", then for GRITS, this is essentially the same thing as removing it altogether, since it is no longer in your "collection of truth". Now as many of you pointed out, non-literal interpretations of the Bible may preserve your idea of it being "true". But your decision to view it non-literally solely on the basis of scientific evidence perhaps betrays your actual feelings on the matter--that you adjust your notion of "truth" only when you want to continue to claim the Bible is true even when you have stopped believing it.
No. I thoroughly object to this attempt at mind reading. Why on earth would I want to carry on claiming that the Noah story is true when i have stopped believing that it is true? It is not true! Not true in the literal-historical sense of true. It did not happen as described. And just like other stories in the Bible that are clearly not historically true it still has a point! Saying all this is just an expression of where the evidence points - it is not some desperate subterfuge to salvage something from the wreckage of lost historicity! Many of us are quite happy with seeing the bible as containing many more genres than just literal prose, parable and poetry!
The Bible is, for good or ill, one of the foundation documents of Christianity. The question is: what do we make of it? No Christian group or denomination of any kind takes every part of the the bible as equally authoritative to every other. In that sense the idea that we are chucking out bits of it is the way things are in ALL christian cirles. No fundamentalist I know places Ecclesiates on the same level of 'truth' as the gospels. None that I know of stone stubborn children to death. None that I know of refuse to wear garments made of two kinds of cloth. To suggest that this kind of relativising of parts of the Bible is somehow so radically different from seeing Noah's flood as a legend with a point to it is hard to take!
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
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
Kevin,
My last post was written in the small hours and was rather more terse than I would like re-reading it in the light of day! For which apologies - any mind reading you practiced had a tentative 'perhaps' attached to it which I overlooked. I should also have added that I enjoyed your post and the way you look at both sides, chew over the issues on the hoof, and try to see where the nub of the matter lies.
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
GRITS's point is that the Bible, being the word of God, is surely a more reliable narrative than scientific texts, being the word of man.
Indeed it is.
But the point is not that "scientific texts" contradict yeccism & the idea of a recent global flood; but that things anyone can observe with their own eyes do. Go out and look at the rocks, go out and look at live animals and plants, see what actually is there.
Sometimes I wonder if one of the reasons yeccism is so popular in North America is that much of that continent has a relatively simple geology, with surfaces of one type of rock, or from one era or another going on for miles - hundreds of miles in some cases. Geologists on field trips tend to go for hundreds of miles into badlands and wilderness to look for interesting sites.
That's not true about Britain, which is of course the country in which geological evidence for an old earth was first gathered (mostly by Bible-believing Christians, as it happens). We have a deep geological column which has all the eras of life on earth laid out in front of us.
In Britain there are places where you can walk in a day from geologically Recent rocks, back through the Tertiary era, then the Cretaceous and right through the Mesozoic. There are places where a reasonably fit person could cycle from the Pleistocene to the Precambrian in a day, seeing exposed surfaces of almost every single period on the way (there is a big bit of the Jurassic missing, but that's about it)
My home town is Brighton on the south coast of England. It's only about 50 miles from London. It is about 15 miles from the sites where the first named dinosaurs were found and described by William Buckand and Gideon Mantell, in sandstone rocks in the area of South-East England known as the Weald.
Brighton is not on the Weald but on the Downs. The Downs are the remains of a great dome of chalk that once covered the Wealden rocks, and if you drill down through the chalk you get to sandstone and in some places coal below that.
The place I lived as a child, a suburb of Brighton known as Woodingdean, has the the deepest well ever dug by hand in the world. 1,285 ft. It seems a really silly thing to do. I have no idea why they didn't drill it. But it is a local tradition. I've seen films of people mining for water in the Downs, wearing diving apparatus which was needed when they struck the water.
All that digging is through chalk.
Even now there are places where the chalk is a kilometre thick.
The sandstone of the Weald, below the chalk, contains fossils. The chalk is fossil. A kilometre thick layer of the skeletons of microscopic sea creatures - with plenty of other fossils in it as well. It isn't homogenous - it is layered, with the different layers of different ages containing remains of different macrofossils and microfossils.
I was born and brought up on top of a heap of a trillion tons of fossil.
Below that is sandstone containing fossils, below that is coal - another fossil rock.
The organisms that form the matrix of the chalk live in shallow tropical seas. Many of them are are photosynthetic, they need light. There is no way that a layer a kilometre thick could be deposited in a few weeks, or even a few centuries.
I believe the Bible. If someone tells me that the Bible says the sun rises in the west, when I can see it rising in the east, then I know they are misinterpreting the Bible.
If someone tells me that the landscape of the south-east of England, where I have lived almost all my life and which I know "like the back of my hand" was formed by a recent global flood then I know, because of what I have seen with my own eyes, that they are wrong.
Just walk from along the Brighton seafront from Portslade to Telscombe Cliffs, with your eyes open, paying attention to the rocks and the landscape, and you would be unable to belive in the "flood geology" of Whitcomb and Morris, which is as unbiblical as it is unscientific.
The Bible is given to us to teach truth, not lies. If some tells me that it says something which I know is untrue, then I know they are reading it wrong.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
Now as many of you pointed out, non-literal interpretations of the Bible may preserve your idea of it being "true". But your decision to view it non-literally solely on the basis of scientific evidence perhaps betrays your actual feelings on the matter--that you adjust your notion of "truth" only when you want to continue to claim the Bible is true even when you have stopped believing it.
No. I thoroughly object to this attempt at mind reading.
Actually, I more or less agree with Kevin Iga on this. There is nothing wrong per se with a non-literal interpretation of the Scriptures so long as the evidence supports it. However, it seems that "It's true in a mythical/allegorical/parabolical sense" is a position taken as a fallback when the position "It's historically true" has been disproved, rather than as a position legitimately derived from the text. Many people have jumped to the position that the Noah account is intentionally mythical without thinking through questions like "Why do genealogies present Noah as an ancestor of those presented as actual people?" That does look more like an exercise in saving the Bible's face than exegesis.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
... Many people have jumped to the position that the Noah account is intentionally mythical without thinking through questions like "Why do genealogies present Noah as an ancestor of those presented as actual people?" That does look more like an exercise in saving the Bible's face than exegesis.
Perhaps so. I personally find it impossible to believe that the account was intentionally mythical, because I do not believe that the originators of the story had a concept of myth in the way that we do. Nor do I think that they had the same concept of history that we do.
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
I personally find it impossible to believe that the [Noah] account was intentionally mythical, because I do not believe that the originators of the story had a concept of myth in the way that we do.
Agreed.
quote:
Nor do I think that they had the same concept of history that we do.
Here I agree, more or less. The writers of the Old Testament probably relied more on tradition and probably assumed that what was handed down from antiquity was factual. The skepticism of a modern historian or even of ancient Greek historians like Tacitus was most likely lacking. However, the rough common-sensical idea of history as a report of "stuff that happened" is probably common to then and now.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
Perhaps so. I personally find it impossible to believe that the account was intentionally mythical, because I do not believe that the originators of the story had a concept of myth in the way that we do. Nor do I think that they had the same concept of history that we do.
Interesting thoughts, Glenn. To be honest, I think the meaning of "myth" has been butchered over the last century. It's come to denote whether something is factual and/or historical, ie. something mythical can't have happened. Sad. Perhaps a term like "meta-narrative" is a reasonable replacement, but it depends on the circumstance.
"History" has become a bit of a strange word as well - the modern approach to history is detached, whereas the ancients (in this case the REALLY ancients) understood that their history lived in them, and they carried it with them wherever they went. This was true in both a literal and metaphorical sense; history wasn't a thing to be studied, but remembered as a group identifier. One thing I find interesting is that, regardless of how they viewed history/myth/legend/factuality, they would have implicitly understood that the Noah story was not a normal set of events, and being part of the oral record they would have had no recourse to ascertain the factual nature of the events; so regardless of their view of history (ie. they could have had the same forensic view as we do) they wouldn't have had the tools to pursue it anyway.
That sounds muddled, but there you go.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I'd like to throw in that my view of 'myth' requires the hearer to assume that it is factually true in order to derive meaning. We must hear the story of Noah as if God is a man-like being who created the universe and became increasingly enraged by what he saw as wickedness. We must see Noah as a bemused but faithful follower of this God. We have to put ourselves in their exact shoes and ask ourselves what we think they went through, what they learned, and why the story was passed onto us by people far more wise than we are. If we do, we will be enlightened.
One of the reasons what I protest so strongly that "either it happened historically or it is a lie" means that if scientific evidence comes along that refutes its historicity, the all bets are off. This puts spiritual meaning unnecessarily in jeopardy. On the other hand, saying, "look, it's a story--willfully suspend disbelief, assume it is true, and ask yourself what it means" guarantees you will get an answer. By faith in those who came before, and in whatever is behind their words, the correct meaning will come through. That is what I believe.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
David
Complete Bastard
# 3
|
Posted
Well said, Jim.
One thing I wanted to mention before is that GRITS little list titled Everything I need to know I learned from Noah's Ark, while more in fun than anything else, is the product of a far more effective, rational and rewarding approach to the story than the one that makes grown people spend their lives scouring Turkey for old pieces of wood.
Posts: 3815 | From: Redneck Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
and none of the things G.R.I.T.S specified as things she has learnt from the Ark require the myth to be literally true.
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Kevin, what do you hope to accomplish with your fence-sitting commentary? Your position is clearly at odds with GRITS:
...
What you are seeing is not "ganging up" but uniformity of opinion: the story is not literal historical fact, and does not need to be in order to derive meaning. You are a subset in that majority in that you agree it does not have to be literal historical fact in order to have meaning. None of your position is in accord with GRITS. Why the lecture on epistemology to those with whom you agree more? Why not argue that GRITS' insistence on historical fact is incorrect? That is your position, is it not?
My position is that given what I understand the Biblical narrative to be doing, I find it hard to take GRITS's side. HOWEVER, my point of the last post was that it seems people are saying that GRITS's position is simply untenable. I think it is tenable, depending on your point of view. I just don't hold it.
Kevin
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
No. I thoroughly object to this attempt at mind reading. Why on earth would I want to carry on claiming that the Noah story is true when i have stopped believing that it is true? It is not true! Not true in the literal-historical sense of true. It did not happen as described. And just like other stories in the Bible that are clearly not historically true it still has a point! Saying all this is just an expression of where the evidence points - it is not some desperate subterfuge to salvage something from the wreckage of lost historicity! Many of us are quite happy with seeing the bible as containing many more genres than just literal prose, parable and poetry!
OK. I thought some of you were saying Noah's story was "true" in some sense even if it is not "true" in the historical/literal sense. I do know people who say this, though, so I stand by the point I made, even if Glenn doesn't take this point.
quote:
The Bible is, for good or ill, one of the foundation documents of Christianity. The question is: what do we make of it? No Christian group or denomination of any kind takes every part of the the bible as equally authoritative to every other. In that sense the idea that we are chucking out bits of it is the way things are in ALL christian cirles. No fundamentalist I know places Ecclesiates on the same level of 'truth' as the gospels. None that I know of stone stubborn children to death. None that I know of refuse to wear garments made of two kinds of cloth. To suggest that this kind of relativising of parts of the Bible is somehow so radically different from seeing Noah's flood as a legend with a point to it is hard to take!
Glenn
You're right, though for some people there are certain boundaries they draw in the sand as to how far they will go in interpreting the Bible, and though different people draw different lines in the sand, when someone crosses such a line, we shouldn't be surprised at the response.
Kevin
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
GRITS's point is that the Bible, being the word of God, is surely a more reliable narrative than scientific texts, being the word of man.
Indeed it is.
But the point is not that "scientific texts" contradict yeccism & the idea of a recent global flood; but that things anyone can observe with their own eyes do. Go out and look at the rocks...
My apologies. I used the phrase "scientific texts" partly for rhetorical purposes, and partly because for most people, that's what they are dealing with. The point I was making is still there if we consider that our reasoning abilities based on our limited information is always limited by human error. So it doesn't matter if we make the scientific observation or we merely verify the observations of others.
Kevin
--------------------
Presbyterian /prez.bi.ti'.ri.en/ n. One who believes the governing authorities of the church should be called "presbyters".
Posts: 521 | From: Pepperdine University | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
One of the reasons what I protest so strongly that "either it happened historically or it is a lie" means that if scientific evidence comes along that refutes its historicity, the all bets are off. This puts spiritual meaning unnecessarily in jeopardy.
Amen, JimT. Amen.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Kevin, you've responded to everyone and I don't mean to belabor a point but I think we all know that any position is "tenable" if you grant all the assumptions. Aboriginal tribes in Oz have perfectly tenable positions on creation I am sure. But in 21st century America, these positions are not tenable to a thinking, rational person with a capacity for understanding rudimentary science. So it is that the popular(?!) fundamentalist position that Noah was a 400 year old carpenter who saw the world's first rainstorm which drowned everything that breathed except one boatload of animals is "untenable." To say it is "tenable" because the believer posits that the Bible is literally true regardless of reason, experience, and science is a misuse of the word "tenable" IMO.
But you are right--plenty of people (in my family!) disagree. The all hold untenable positions.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
