|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Noah
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
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.
That also is true for our interpretation of scripture (or any other writings for that matter)
And interpretations of these things do differ.
As far as we know the earliest Christian interpretations of the creation stories in Genesis took the day-age view - right back to Justin Martyr who had met people who had mnet the Apostles. Others took different views on it. The literal "6-days-of-24-hours = 6-rotations-of-the-earth" attitude didn't really take over till the Roman Catholic middle ages.
After the Reformation the gap interpretations were favoured by many Protestants, including the original US fundamentalists.
So deciding what the plain literal reading is also involves judgement and the use of our fallible reason.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
Yes, ken, I agree. It is not merely (raw) scripture that we set against (reasoned) science, but our (reasoned) interpretation of scripture that we set against (reasoned) scientificaly obtained observations. And from that perspective the two are more on equal footing. And it is possible to discuss which is more reliable in this case. This is where, in my view, the discussion between GRITS and the rest of you should logically go. But of course, that's up to you all.
JimT, I understand your point, but if we exclude from our consideration holding the idea that the Bible should have priority over science, then IMO the point of this discussion (the past two pages of this thread) is then lost. That question is at the very root of the disagreement, so defining it to be outside the scope of discussion will not allow us to progress.
Now there is a point for raising the kinds of scientific evidence as has been happening all through this thread, not only because it directly answers the OP, but because most people who hold the view I described, and characterized by GRITS's position, DO believe that eventually, as we better understand science and the Biblical narrative, that the two will be in agreement. So scientific evidence against a global flood is still relevant even to a person who holds that the Bible trumps science.
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
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
JimT, I understand your point, but if we exclude from our consideration holding the idea that the Bible should have priority over science, then IMO the point of this discussion (the past two pages of this thread) is then lost. That question is at the very root of the disagreement, so defining it to be outside the scope of discussion will not allow us to progress.
Not true. Progress is possible if both sides agree that meaning can be extracted regardless of whether the story is factual or not. I heard no argument why an interpretation such as mine misses the point due to not assuming literal historical fact.
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
most people who hold the view I described, and characterized by GRITS's position, DO believe that eventually, as we better understand science and the Biblical narrative, that the two will be in agreement.
I'm afraid not, Kevin. The literalist view is that the Biblical narrative needs no further understanding or explanation. The literal historical account is right and cannot be changed (do not add or subtract a word) and science is irrelevant. That is what I heard.
Now you said that you hope some day a Biblical interpretation will be found that will not conflict with science, even though it doesn't matter for meaning. GRITS said she has her interpretation right now and science can only agree with the Bible or lead people astray. If she had hoped with you that someday a Biblical interpretation will be found that does not conflict with new scientific evidence, there would have been no argument.
No matter, really. It appears the discussion is dead. RIP.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Not true. Progress is possible if both sides agree that meaning can be extracted regardless of whether the story is factual or not. I heard no argument why an interpretation such as mine misses the point due to not assuming literal historical fact.
I concede your point. Yes, another way that progress is possible is if GRITS recants.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin Iga:
most people who hold the view I described, and characterized by GRITS's position, DO believe that eventually, as we better understand science and the Biblical narrative, that the two will be in agreement.
I'm afraid not, Kevin. The literalist view is that the Biblical narrative needs no further understanding or explanation. The literal historical account is right and cannot be changed (do not add or subtract a word) and science is irrelevant. That is what I heard.
Now you said that you hope some day a Biblical interpretation will be found that will not conflict with science, even though it doesn't matter for meaning. GRITS said she has her interpretation right now and science can only agree with the Bible or lead people astray. If she had hoped with you that someday a Biblical interpretation will be found that does not conflict with new scientific evidence, there would have been no argument.
No matter, really. It appears the discussion is dead. RIP.
I'm sorry. I phrased my statement too broadly. It is not that literalists look to updating both hermeneutic of the Bible and scientific understanding of the earth. Those literalists who care at all about it tend to focus on science catching up to the Bible, because they believe their understanding of the Bible on that part is pretty much right on (and perhaps inescapable, in holding other interpretations to be untenable). If pressed they might admit that there is more to learn in interpreting that part of the Bible, but they feel they're pretty much right as it is, up to small adjustments, just as the "science" response against a global flood is that there surely is more to learn from geology and so on, but the argument against a global food is viewed as pretty much right as it is, up to small adjustments.
But many "literalists" believe that if science were just done "right" it would all work out in favor of the Bible. Consider Creation Science and CRI. What purpose does that have except to fix "science" in the way I described?
I will take your word for how literalism worked in the church of your youth. I guess my experience is different.
As to what GRITS believes, I actually await her response to this. The easiest way (by observation, no less) to settle this dispute.
Anyway, I think we both agree with my basic point which is that scientific evidence against a global flood is still welcome on this thread and would move the discussion forward.
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Progress is possible if both sides agree that meaning can be extracted regardless of whether the story is factual or not. I heard no argument why an interpretation such as mine misses the point due to not assuming literal historical fact.
Neither did I. Here's where we come to dead end though. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Christianity has no reliable way of interpreting a story other than literally. This means that a lack of historicity appears to refute claims to divine revelation. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The resulting conflict can't be resolved without new information, since both sides have compelling arguments - one based on conclusive evidence, the other based on the divine Word of God.
It's a foolish juxtaposition, in my opinion, since Jesus showed us how to interpret stories like this when He explained the parable of the Sower in Matthew 13. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
This is the only way that both the science can be true and the account can be the infallible Word of God. So much rests on both of these propositions that it is unlikely that one will simply defeat the other - nor would it be good if it did. ![[Cool]](cool.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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote from Kevin Iga quote:
As to what GRITS believes, I actually await her response to this. The easiest way (by observation, no less) to settle this dispute.
I believe that G.R.I.T.S. has withdrawn from this thread.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveWal
Shipmate
# 307
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
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.
This is what fiction writers will tell you is called "suspension of disbelief."
Posts: 208 | From: Manchester | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote from Kevin Iga quote:
As to what GRITS believes, I actually await her response to this. The easiest way (by observation, no less) to settle this dispute.
I believe that G.R.I.T.S. has withdrawn from this thread.
Moo
I have heard that GRITS has opted not to return to this thread. So we'll just have to do without further discussion on it from her. This is, of course, a great disappointment, as robust debate ought to be regarded as a good thing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I have heard that GRITS has opted not to return to this thread. So we'll just have to do without further discussion on it from her. This is, of course, a great disappointment, as robust debate ought to be regarded as a good thing.
I am sorry to hear that, she certainly enlivened things! I hope that she got some insight into how non-fundamentalists or non-conservatives look at this kind of issue. Looks as if I won't get a response to my last post of 1200 words, but such are the pains of Purgatory. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
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
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Progress is possible if both sides agree that meaning can be extracted regardless of whether the story is factual or not.
The question, though, is not whether meaning can be extracted from something non-historical. We do that all the time when we deal with parables. Rather, the question is whether we can extract meaning from something incorrect.
If it were simply an issue of the Noah story being non-historical, our arguments would not be so heated. The trouble is that the Noah story is a non-historical story presented in a context that implies that it is historical. That means that extracting meaning from it is in large part salvaging wheat from chaff, and the very falseness of the account raises the legitimate question of just how much chaff must be sifted.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
The trouble is that the Noah story is a non-historical story presented in a context that implies that it is historical. That means that extracting meaning from it is in large part salvaging wheat from chaff, and the very falseness of the account raises the legitimate question of just how much chaff must be sifted.
I don't think the context implies that it is historical.
To me, the first part of Genesis up to the story of Abraham reads like myth rather than history.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
The trouble is that the Noah story is a non-historical story presented in a context that implies that it is historical. That means that extracting meaning from it is in large part salvaging wheat from chaff, and the very falseness of the account raises the legitimate question of just how much chaff must be sifted.
I don't think the context implies that it is historical.
To me, the first part of Genesis up to the story of Abraham reads like myth rather than history.
The individual stories read like myth, especially to modern eyes that are familiar with the patterns of myth in various religions, but the context--particularly the genealogies--implies that it was intended to be understood as historical. The genealogies in between the stories imply that the characters in these stories were the ancestors of more historically true-to-life figures like Abraham. So we have a story that when disconnected from its context can be readily read as myth, yet is in a context that implied that whoever penned the story understood it as historical and relayed it as such.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Everyone gather round, I am going to tell the story of where we all came from. One day God fashioned man from clay and blew his very own breath into the nostrils of the first man. He was Adam, he had sons; some were bad; most were very good. Some were great and did mighty deeds that we could not imagine doing. One was Noah. [insert ark story]. He had sons and daughters, they had sons and daughters, right on down to you and me.
This is history? If one fact is out of place you may as well throw it out?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Christianity has no reliable way of interpreting a story other than literally.
I'm sorry I couldn't tell from your post: were you positing this as your own POV? Because it's historically false -- Christianity has, or has had, especially in the "early days" (first millenium) many ways of interpreting the stories of the OT, than literalism. Hence the whole juxtaposition between the "Antiochian" and the "Alexandrian" schools of Biblical interpretation.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Christianity has, or has had, especially in the "early days" (first millenium) many ways of interpreting the stories of the OT, than literalism.
Thanks, I didn't know this.
Of course I'm aware that there have been, and are now, many different ways of interpreting Scripture. But I didn't know that there was any way of reliably interpreting a story like the Flood other than either:
1. It actually happened, the account is true and from the lips of God
2. It is ancient myth, the account is not literally true, and is therefore not actually divine revelation.
So do we have a third alternative, which says:
3. The flood did not literally happen, but it is nevertheless true divine revelation and has important meaning for our lives.
Or some other alternative other than "it's true" versus "it's myth"?
I'm contending that we're stuck because we have no firm epistemological basis for a third alternative. But maybe not, since I'm sure that the traditions of the catholic and orthodox churches have what they consider to be authoritative interpretations. Is this right?
--------------------
"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
|
|
afish
Shipmate
# 1135
|
Posted
Ho Hum! where /how to start? Afish has to be careful here. With all these keen minds and laser intellects (not to mention mad scientists) one could easily end up filleted, headthreadeaded and hung out to dry. But what the heck, live dangerously sez I.
Glenn Oldham you say,
“The average height of land is 623 metres above sea level. If the land was made completely flat by squashing down the mountains to fill up the valleys then that is the height the land would be.
To raise sea level by 623 metres would require 62300 centimetres times 3.621 times 10 to the power 18 square centimetres (area of the oceans) equals 225588.3 times 10 to the power 18 cubic centimetres
which is 2.255883 times 10 to the power 23 cubic centimetres which is 3.8 times as much water as there is available in the air, polar ice, glaciers, underground, in lakes and rivers, and in the biosphere all put together.”
There is no need for the maths (no I don’t think that mathematics is a tool of the devil), just not needed. My original point was that though 623m. maybe (if the information and calculations are correct) the averaged out height of the land above sea level *now* we have no idea what it was *then*. We know from the account given, only, that there were “high hills”. How high was a high hill? Like how many angels dance on pinheads that is a question that need not concern us. It is sufficient to say that we do not know what was *then* the height of the highest hill nor the depth of the deepest valley (if valleys there were?).
Then you are worried that the total mass of water in the biosphere is insufficient to do the job. Well leaving aside the question of whether we actually do know what the total mass of water is, let me give you an insight into how simple minds work. I look at an atlas I see that the surface area of water exceeds the surface area of land and that the average depth of the water exceeds the average height of the land and bingo I conclude … yes you’ve got it. So now let’s move on to the nitty-gritty. There is no problem, I presume, in understanding that forty days and forty nights of continuous rain would raise the level of water. Why you think this was a negligible part of the process I’m not sure, since at creation the waters above the sky are spoken of as being equal to the waters under the sky. Then there is the water coming up from the fountains of the deep. This, for the scientific mind, is maybe harder to understand. That there are fountains in the depths of the oceans is admitted, how they actually work the humble, I believe, will admit they don’t know. But, another simple thought, not knowing exactly how something happened should not lead us to say, it didn’t happen.
So where are we? The water came down, the water came up until the highest piece of land was covered by 7m of water. Now the nitty gets grittier because we are told,
“… a wind (passed) over the earth, and the waters subsided. The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, … And the waters receded continually from the earth.”
Where did the water go? Good question. Short answer, we don’t know. Longer answer, maybe there are sink holes in the deeps as well as fountains, maybe the land was raised up, maybe the ice caps were formed and (sorry Glenn) so on. Again not knowing is not the same as couldn’t have been.
As for evidence of the flood, what evidence exactly would you expect there to be after thousands of years during which the face of the earth has experienced huge disruptions? Why exactly are the mass strata of fossilised remains rejected as possible evidence?
Anyway to spare us both I will just deal with one other of your objections, the question of waste disposal. I’m sure that The Lord God Almighty was well aware how much bullshit this event was going to generate and made provision for it. Maybe they converted it into methane to do the cooking and have hot showers or maybe they simply shovelled it out through flaps in the side and (sorry again) so on.
><>
--------------------
"Some things are too hot to touch
The human mind can only stand so much"
Bob Dylan
Posts: 168 | From: France | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
afish
Shipmate
# 1135
|
Posted
Right, I see the waters have not yet subsided. Haven't yet digested the last two pages but will try, hoping that the wieghty arguments don't send me to the bottom.
Yes I'm sorry GRITS has gone (Well done gal!)but understand how one gets to that decision.
Right better get shoveling.
><>
--------------------
"Some things are too hot to touch
The human mind can only stand so much"
Bob Dylan
Posts: 168 | From: France | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
What on earth are you on about, afish?
--------------------
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
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Everyone gather round, I am going to tell the story of where we all came from. One day God fashioned man from clay and blew his very own breath into the nostrils of the first man. He was Adam, he had sons; some were bad; most were very good. Some were great and did mighty deeds that we could not imagine doing. One was Noah. [insert ark story]. He had sons and daughters, they had sons and daughters, right on down to you and me.
This is history?
No, it is not history, but by the time it came to be in Genesis, it was relayed as such. Even your cursory genealogy "He had sons and daughters, they had sons and daughters, right on down to you and me" means the story is presented as factual enough that its characters were real enough to be the ancestors of real people.
quote:
If one fact is out of place you may as well throw it out?
If only one fact were out of place, we wouldn't be having this discussion! We know that the stories of Adam and Eve and Noah are so far out of step with the findings of geology and paleology, that we know the stories are not factual. Indeed, as history, we do throw them out.
The question is whether or not we throw them out as input for spiritual guidance. This is a non-trivial question because we are not dealing with an ahistorical story presented for the sake of teaching (like a parable or an allegory) but an unhistorical story that was probably derived from myth but is presented not as a teaching tool, but as a factual account. If we are deriving spiritual guidance from it, we are deriving spiritual guidance from known falsehood.
How do we derive truth from a false story? That is the question, and the answer is not simple.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
[qb]Everyone gather round, I am going to tell the story of where we all came from. One day God fashioned man from clay and blew his very own breath into the nostrils of the first man. He was Adam, he had sons; some were bad; most were very good. Some were great and did mighty deeds that we could not imagine doing. One was Noah. [insert ark story]. He had sons and daughters, they had sons and daughters, right on down to you and me.
This is history?
No, it is not history, but by the time it came to be in Genesis, it was relayed as such. Even your cursory genealogy "He had sons and daughters, they had sons and daughters, right on down to you and me" means the story is presented as factual enough that its characters were real enough to be the ancestors of real people.
I think you we being a little quick to dismiss its historicity. If the Bible as the inspired word of God presents it as history, I think that that is the most probable option. Do we really think that an originally mythical story came to be interpreted as history as it got passed down? Are there any details in the story itself that make it more likely to be at least based on some history than invented? (perhaps the fact that it gives precise datings eg chapter 7, verse 11).
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by afish:
As for evidence of the flood, what evidence exactly would you expect there to be after thousands of years during which the face of the earth has experienced huge disruptions? Why exactly are the mass strata of fossilised remains rejected as possible evidence?
OK, let's establish a hypothesis to be tested. The hypothesis is that sometime between 5 and 10 thousand years ago the surface of the earth was covered with sufficient water to cover at least those hills and mountains known to the people of the middle east, and that this flood lasted for several months. What evidence would you expect to observe following this event?
As I see it, there are two possibilities.
1) The Flood waters rise quickily, there is a lot of turbulance and erosion resulting in a very heavy sediment load in the flood water. Then when the flood subsides these sediments will settle out fairly uniformly across the surface, and they'll be well mixed. In addition to mixing the sediments, such a Flood would mix the corpses of all that died - and probably disarticulating many of them.
The current earths surface would be covered by deep, homogeneous sedimentary rock with just a small amount of restructuring by erosion, volcanism and seismic events since then. Non-sedimentary rocks would be very scarce near the earths surface, as would near complete fossils or any very localised collections of fossils.
2) The Flood was not very violent. Though some erosion of soils and softer sedimentary rocks would occur the sediment load in the flood water would be relatively light. Bodies of dead animals would remain approximately where they died (many would, naturally, float for a short period before sinking to the bottom - but probably not float half way round the world for example). Such a scenario might generate localised fossil beds, but very little in the way of sedimentary rock.
So, do either of these scenarios match what we observe today?
Well, though there are some very substantial depths of sedimentary rocks they are very varied, and there are also substantial non-sedimentary surface rocks. And, there are several places where substantial numbers of similar creatures are fossilised together, and specific layers in rocks contain there own fossil types. This doesn't look at all like scenario one.
On the other hand, a gentle flood would mean that most of the sedimentary rocks (and the fossils they contain) pre-existed the Flood. And that the vast majority of the creatures killed in the Flood were no fossilised. So, though possible, a gentle flood would actually leave virtually no evidence. And a non-Flood explanation is needed for the presence of fossils and sedimentary rocks ... and such an explanation would require a lot more time for these rock layers to be laid down than most people taking a literal reading of the Genesis story would like.
--------------------
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
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
and how about a mixture of the two types of flood, with some areas receiving gentle treatment, and others violent (surely on an area the size of the globe, we would not expect one condition to totally prevail....just look at the oceans today), or a mixture of the two types in time, with one coming before or after the other as the dynamics of the situation change?
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
quote:
If one fact is out of place you may as well throw it out?
If only one fact were out of place, we wouldn't be having this discussion! We know that the stories of Adam and Eve and Noah are so far out of step with the findings of geology and paleology, that we know the stories are not factual. Indeed, as history, we do throw them out.
The question is whether or not we throw them out as input for spiritual guidance. This is a non-trivial question because we are not dealing with an ahistorical story presented for the sake of teaching (like a parable or an allegory) but an unhistorical story that was probably derived from myth but is presented not as a teaching tool, but as a factual account. If we are deriving spiritual guidance from it, we are deriving spiritual guidance from known falsehood.
How do we derive truth from a false story? That is the question, and the answer is not simple.
Right down to the 17th century and beyond people were fond of making up genealogies in which a mythical line of forebears were grafted onto people who actually existed. Genealogies were made up for a variety of reasons.
One of the best such examples is the Scottish monarchy. By the time of the Wars of Independence Scotland's claim to be independent of England was a political hot potato.
The English monarchy was pushing a line which claimed that the English monarchs were descended from a non-existant chap called Brutus the Trojan whom they claimed ruled the whole of Britain (which was named after him) hence they claimed Scotland belonged to them as the heirs of Brutus.
The Scots retaliated by claiming that their monarchy was descended from one Scota, Pharaoh's daughter who came to Scotland with Jacob's pillow (the Stone of Destiny) much earlier in the day, hence her claim would trump that of the mythical Brutus, and they gave it a Biblical twist too, which made it even better for thumbing their nose at the English.
In both cases the stories were pure myth. What you have are 'just-so stories' designed to make a point. Yet such stories were soon taken so seriously as matter of national pride that they were quickly treated as historical. Right down to the 18th century, it was fighting talk to dispute the historicity of the Scottish king list which accompanied this myth. I've no doubt that George Buchanan, the great Reformation scholar, who retold this myth in its most elaborate form, believed it to be historical in the same way as he absolutely believed the Noah story to be history.
But it wasn't, and as the scientific evidence implies, the Noah story isn't historical either. So was someone of Buchanan's stellar intellect an idiot for believing both of these stories? Does his belief in such stories make him less reliable when he is writing about the history of his own times?
No, it simply makes him a man of his time. The best way I can describe this mindset is that it's one of 'a story so good it MUST be true'. Pre-Enlightenment societies gave symbolic thought and story a much higher importance than Post-Enlightenment societies. They were also much more likely to take something that was powerfully symbolic and to treat it as if it was literally true: the stories of Arthur and the round table, classical literature (the Aeneid and The Iliad were treated as literal historical accounts), Celtic myth. The same people also wrote stuff which was perfectly historically accurate by modern standards (eye witness accounts of battles, diaries, letters etc).
This is familiar ground to anyone who works on pre-18th century history. It's extremely common to see myth presented as unquestionably true because of its importance as symbol.
To me it simply doesn't make sense to say
quote:
If we are deriving spiritual guidance from it, we are deriving spiritual guidance from known falsehood.
I would say 'If we are deriving spiritual guidance from it, we are deriving spiritual guidance from a powerful symbol which was deeply important to the people who preserved it. So deeply important that they treated it as historical truth, which it turns out it wasn't'
Some highly symbolic things once treated as historically true, in fact, turn out not to be. Do I genuinely think a Byzantine monk brought the relics of St Andrew to St Andrews in the 4th century? No, I do not. Do I therefore think that we should ditch our saltire flag and stop celebrating November 30th as our national day and that St Andrews cathedral should stop being important to me? Of course not.
Whether his relics ever turned up here or not, St Andrew became a powerful symbol in Scottish history and culture. I despair when I come across this 'all or nothing' attitude that something must be historically literally true or it has no spiritual meaning or significance. It might get you 'null points' if you're sitting a history exam but that's not how the heart works and that's not how things inspire us spiritually.
I think the story of Noah is rich symbolically. In fact though they believed in its historicity, 17th century people also interpreted it allegorically as a 'type' foreshadowing Christ and the new covenant. The idea that there is only one sort of meaning which has any significance, a historically literal one, is a modern one.
Oddly enough, it is shared by both fundamentalists (using the word in its doctrinal sense) and most atheists - both groups seem to consider that if a story is found to be historically untrue then it must be valueless.
I find this idea pernicious, as what it so often leads to is religious people trying to rubbish, finagle and distort science and history: as if people whose God-given talent for research in such disciplines are part of some grand conspiracy to undermine their faith.
On the other side, I find it wearing, as what you get are smug people who think that because they can disprove that the Flood/YEC creation ever happened that you ought to keel over and say 'Gosh, you're right! Christianity is nonsense after all!' and believe you me, I've met plenty of them and enjoyed watching the puzzlement on their faces as I point out to them that no, you don't have to believe in creationism/inerrancy to be a Christian and that most Christians (on this side of the Atlantic anyway) don't hold inerrantist views and so palaentology/ancient history/astronomy/biology/geology etc. don't present problems for Christian belief which require resorting to pseudoscience as a defence.
Well, anyway, that's my point of view.
cheers,
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
To me it simply doesn't make sense to say
quote:
If we are deriving spiritual guidance from it, we are deriving spiritual guidance from known falsehood.
I would say 'If we are deriving spiritual guidance from it, we are deriving spiritual guidance from a powerful symbol which was deeply important to the people who preserved it. So deeply important that they treated it as historical truth, which it turns out it wasn't'.
Beautifully said, Louise. Thanks for that whole post. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.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
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Oddly enough, it is shared by both fundamentalists (using the word in its doctrinal sense) and most atheists - both groups seem to consider that if a story is found to be historically untrue then it must be valueless.
The above should be clarified slightly. It is more accurate to say that fundamentalists and atheists "seem to consider that if a story that had been considered historical is found to be historically untrue then it must be valueless."
The implication is that when the story is found non-historical, the relayer of the story is considered unreliable and thus his/her other testimony suspect.
quote:
The best way I can describe this mindset is that it's one of 'a story so good it MUST be true'. Pre-Enlightenment societies gave symbolic thought and story a much higher importance than Post-Enlightenment societies. They were also much more likely to take something that was powerfully symbolic and to treat it as if it was literally true: the stories of Arthur and the round table, classical literature (the Aeneid and The Iliad were treated as literal historical accounts), Celtic myth. The same people also wrote stuff which was perfectly historically accurate by modern standards (eye witness accounts of battles, diaries, letters etc).
This is familiar ground to anyone who works on pre-18th century history. It's extremely common to see myth presented as unquestionably true because of its importance as symbol.
Ah. In other words, the idea that the mix of myth with other historical accounts makes the historical accounts unreliable doesn't quite wash.
quote:
Right down to the 17th century and beyond people were fond of making up genealogies in which a mythical line of forebears were grafted onto people who actually existed. Genealogies were made up for a variety of reasons.
Hmm, that implies that the geneological "glue" connecting the myths in Genesis is probably myth itself. Interesting.
The examples you've cited are all of European history. Do you have access to examples of Ancient Near East examples of mythical genealogies?
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
and how about a mixture of the two types of flood, with some areas receiving gentle treatment, and others violent (surely on an area the size of the globe, we would not expect one condition to totally prevail....just look at the oceans today), or a mixture of the two types in time, with one coming before or after the other as the dynamics of the situation change?
Analogies with todays oceans aren't all that helpful - the differences between oceans today are largely driven by currents, which in turn are directed to a large extent by land masses. A global flood would have currents that would be, more or less, unaffected by the underlying land surface - you'd be better drawing an analogy with the atmosphere; and that is well known to mix things effectively, the fallout created by atmospheric weapons tests is almost equally dispersed throughout both hemispheres.
As for a change in time ... well, any period of violent turbulance will have the effect of creating lots of sediment and dispersing skeletons. Scenario 1 again.
--------------------
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
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
How do we derive truth from a false story? That is the question, and the answer is not simple.
I am not at all clear that I understand you here J. J. No one believes that Pilgrim's Progress or Middlemarch or The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe are historically true stories and yet no one I know thinks of them as without truth, or even that the truths in them are hard to get at.
What am I missing in your argument?
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
afish
Shipmate
# 1135
|
Posted
Laura
“Afish what on earth are you talking about?”
Too deep for you eh Laura?
Well I’ve shovelled my way through pages 6&7, but I’ve had a cup of tea and been outside and thrown a few sticks for the dog, so I’m feeling better now.
First of all thank you to Kevin I. for sitting on the fence thus bringing in some *balance* to what was fast becoming a jeering joust, with us “dangerous dumbo’s” getting the blunt end.
Also to J.J. Ramsey for this:
“The question, though, is not whether meaning can be extracted from something non-historical. We do that all the time when we deal with parables. Rather, the question is whether we can extract meaning from something incorrect.”
"How do we derive truth from a false story? That is the question, and the answer is not simple."
This is real intellectual endeavour and honesty. It also goes some way in answering Glimmers question, why does this discussion matter?.
From Ben26 we have this:
"We know as a matter of indisputable, scientific fact that a large number of the events portrayed in the O.T. never, ever, ever happened in any literal sense whatsoever."
Sorry Ben but it seems to me that you are unable to recognize a dispute even when it pokes you in the eye.
Glen said:
“Looks as if I won't get a response to my last post of 1200 words, but such are the pains of Purgatory.”
No Glen, as much as we disagree, your posts are usually worth the reading, if one has the time and mental energy for it. Out of your 1200 words I would say that this:
“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.”
highlights the real problem. I have not yet seen any “evidence” that convinces me.
As you also say,
"Again, you may disagree, but the point is that there are grounds for an alternative view. "
But Jim T. seems to disagree:
"But in 21st century America, these positions are not tenable to a thinking, rational person with a capacity for understanding rudimentary science."
So Jim I’m a dumbo then and my two general certificates in science gained at the age of 16 are not worth the paper they are written on. In another age, another culture that way of describing someone would certainly mean pistols at dawn.
Jim also says:
“ The literalist view is that the Biblical narrative needs no further understanding or explanation.” Wrong!
“The literal historical account is right and cannot be changed (do not add or subtract a word) “ Right!
“and science is irrelevant.” Wrong!
Back to Kevin I.:
“… scientific evidence against a global flood is still welcome on this thread and would move the discussion forward."
Yes please let’s get nitty gritty. I for one am certainly interested in this “evidence”. So ken, karl et al, please not too basic, remember my two science “O” levels, and not too convoluted, being afish of very little brain. Let’s focus on how what we see now, proves indisputably that there was no flood as described in Genesis.
Alan C.
Thanks for your response which is in line with what I’ve just said. Will come back on it but for the moment need a break from all this shovelling.
Last word from GRITS:
"… but the Truth I have found is just as tangible, logical and intellectually sound to me as is yours to you.”
><>
--------------------
"Some things are too hot to touch
The human mind can only stand so much"
Bob Dylan
Posts: 168 | From: France | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Hmm, that implies that the geneological "glue" connecting the myths in Genesis is probably myth itself. Interesting.
As I think I've said elsewhere (sorry, couldn't find where), I consider it to be a mistake to seperate the stories in Genesis and treat them in isolation. The habit we have of reading no more than a chapter at a time has a lot to answer for sometimes. The whole of Genesis is one single foundational myth. To draw from what Louise posted, the analogous figure for Israel of Brutus or Scota isn't Adam or Noah ... it's Jacob/Israel (or possibly Abraham). The historical part of Scripture (and even then with more important things to say than teach objective history) starts with the Exodus.
--------------------
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
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
Thanks for your reply, afish. I hope you have fun reading the last two pages of the thread which cover some of the points that you raise. The canopy of water over the earth as a source of water for the flood runs into the problem that teh atmospheric pressure would have been lethally high. But i guess you would just say that the land was so low that the amount of water needed to cover it was so small that the atmospheric pressure would have only been slightly increased. (what and still be enough to rain for 40 days and 40 nights all around the globe?)
Which brings me to:
quote:
Originally posted by afish:
We know from the account given, only, that there were “high hills”. How high was a high hill?
Could someone please tell me the name of any major bible translation that translates the hebrew word used in Genesis 7:19 as hill rather than mountain. Every translation that I have looked at has "mountains"! (RSV, NRSV, NEB, GNB, NIV)
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 afish:
Glen said:
"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.”
highlights the real problem. I have not yet seen any “evidence” that convinces me.
????????????
I said that "the geological evidence does not point to such an event as having happened" to which you reply "I have not yet seen any “evidence” that convinces me." There is no evidence for a global flood - that is why the evidence doesn't point that way. What evidence are you referring to? How much do you know about geology? Are you aware of the way current geological thoery draws together many strands of independent evidence into an overall theory that explains that evidence in a profoundly compelling way, and which is utterly incompatible with a young earth creationist account? What evidence do you know of which overturns that theory in favour of the young earth and/or global flood theory?
Why should I overturn the whole of geology for the sake of believing that the bible is historically inerrant?
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
The examples you've cited are all of European history. Do you have access to examples of Ancient Near East examples of mythical genealogies?
Sumerian King List (in a nice user friendly form - those wanting the academic text go here )
The Sumerian King list begins with a line of mythical kings and ends with kings whose existence is well documented by archaeological finds. In between there are a few where your guess would be as good as mine whether they're mythical or not!
cheers,
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
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
How do we derive truth from a false story? That is the question, and the answer is not simple.
I am not at all clear that I understand you here J. J. No one believes that Pilgrim's Progress or Middlemarch or The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe are historically true stories and yet no one I know thinks of them as without truth, or even that the truths in them are hard to get at.
What am I missing in your argument?
I'll recap from an earlier post:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
The question, though, is not whether meaning can be extracted from something non-historical. We do that all the time when we deal with parables. Rather, the question is whether we can extract meaning from something incorrect.
If it were simply an issue of the Noah story being non-historical, our arguments would not be so heated. The trouble is that the Noah story is a non-historical story presented in a context that implies that it is historical. That means that extracting meaning from it is in large part salvaging wheat from chaff, and the very falseness of the account raises the legitimate question of just how much chaff must be sifted.
Pilgrim's Progress or Middlemarch or The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe are presented as fiction, as non-historical. "False," at best, only applies to them in the most narrow sense of the term, and in practice, it would be considered a dubious description of them. The Noah story, in contrast, is a non-historical story presented as historical. That's the piece you were missing.
[fixed UBB for quote]
[ 01. June 2003, 22:24: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
The Sumerian King list begins with a line of mythical kings and ends with kings whose existence is well documented by archaeological finds. In between there are a few where your guess would be as good as mine whether they're mythical or not!
I think that there are theories that the sumerian king list was somehow based on the Genesis genealogies?
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Pilgrim's Progress or Middlemarch or The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe are presented as fiction, as non-historical. "False," at best, only applies to them in the most narrow sense of the term, and in practice, it would be considered a dubious description of them. The Noah story, in contrast, is a non-historical story presented as historical. That's the piece you were missing.
Nope, I still don't get it. There are large numbers of novels which either do not declare themselves to be fiction or which pretend to be biography (Robinson Crusoe is an example that springs to mind) and I still don't have any major trouble finding the meaning of them.
Furthermore, suppose that it was found that the story of David and Bathsheba was entirely fictional, that would not stop it from being a deeply moving and instructive story.
So I still don't get your point.
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kevin Iga
Shipmate
# 4396
|
Posted
For a long time I've considered the role of the geneaologies in Genesis, and I'm still mystified. The names, in some cases, are understandable, in light of K. Wilson's research on geneaologies in many different cultures: the point of geneaology is not history but familial relationship. When a certain missionary was accepted into a certain African tribe, for instance, he was worked into the geneaology, and the geneaology tables, handed down orally, were then modified to include him. We see this in 1 Maccabees 12:21, too, when the Spartans graft their geneaology together with the Jewish geneaology to establish diplomatic ties.
The table of nations in Genesis 10 seems to be of this type.
The problem is that all the other tables, including Genesis 11 which agrees with Genesis 10, include years. Putting aside the surprising ages, there's the question of why they are there at all in light of Wilson's ideas, or in light of spiritual benefit in parables (other than to say people used to live long lives which could be said more quickly).
Together with deviations with the Septuagint (usually off by 100), this has gotten me to suspect that the true interpretation of these ages is actually a numerological one, but I haven't actually figured out how it works yet. (The numerological systems of Greeks and Hebrews were sometimes off in the 100s because Tsade was not in the Greek alphabet.)
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
|
|
pftaylor
Apprentice
# 3020
|
Posted
"They deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed" 2 Peter 2:5&6.
The consistant Christian view is that the Bible is inerrant. To believe that the Flood account is merely figurative is a waste of effort - I'd rather believe it was all a lie.
There is plenty of evidence that there was a world-wide Flood. for instance, the world contains lots of fossils, supposedly laid down over millions of years. So the skeleton was just sticking out of the earth, while the rock grew slowly over it, was it? In fact, fossils can really only be explained by fast deposition of rock sediment, which would have occured during a global flood.
--------------------
The fool who says he is a fool is a wise man, but the wise man who says he is a wise man is a fool
Posts: 6 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
The Sumerian king list was written down around 2125 BC.
The earliest generally-accepted date for the first written traditions in Genesis is about a millenium later, although some scholars have tried to push it farther back (Wenham, I think).
However this is irrelevant to the point under discussion, which is the juxtaposition of historical and mythical figures in ancient-world genealogies.
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
From Ken's post earlier in the thread, about where he grew up
quote:
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.
Tell me pftaylor, just how much of this 7 page thread did you bother reading and thinking about before you favoured us with your views?
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
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by afish:
Laura
“Afish what on earth are you talking about?”
Too deep for you eh Laura?
Yes, that must be it. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pftaylor:
The consistant Christian view is that the Bible is inerrant. To believe that the Flood account is merely figurative is a waste of effort - I'd rather believe it was all a lie.
There is plenty of evidence that there was a world-wide Flood. for instance, the world contains lots of fossils, supposedly laid down over millions of years. So the skeleton was just sticking out of the earth, while the rock grew slowly over it, was it? In fact, fossils can really only be explained by fast deposition of rock sediment, which would have occured during a global flood.
Logically, whether the Bible is inerrant is a question entirely independent of whether you'd rather it be or not, as I'm sure you must realize. To take the inerrantist position requires the rejection of biology, geology, anthropology, chemistry, physics, just to name a few. I'm staggered that an inerrantist would see a doctor, as all of what they have been taught must be incorrect, from an inerrantist view. There's just no way around this. Then you create these logical fallacies - it's either all exactly "true" (by a very narrow definition of that term) or it's all false. I just can't grasp why so many people seem to paint themselves into this logical corner.
So it matters not a bit whether there's evidence for a global flood because there's ample evidence that several other biblical events did not transpire as described. To believe the Noah story is one thing; to believe that AND that the two Biblical creation accounts are literally correct requires years of successful brainwashing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Afish.
What Laura said. What Dr. Cresswell said. What Ken said.
Of course I realise that is possible to be intelligent and a literalist (and regardless of how intelligent I may or may not be, I was a creationist myself for years ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ), I also realise that it is possible to be intelligent and badly informed. I was summarising my views when I posted last, not giving my views in full.
Now, if there was a single shred of evidence that Noah actually existed I would be happier to talk of a debate and good arguements on both sides. The reasons I don't think the literalist arguements are much use are
A) A literal understanding is not really required either from church history or the text itself. The original text is poetry and borrows heavily from other poems/epics/fables from the Ancient Near East. The majority of these probably predate the Genesis account and there is, in any case, clear evidence that the Genesis account was compiled from a number of sources (the Elohim, The Priestly, and a couple of others whose names I have forgotten). These seperate tales display differing Theologies.
2) The geneologies (sp?) in the O.T are mainly used to convey theological rather then historical accounts. If Adam (for example) never existed in a historical sense then Jesus does not need to be the last Adam in a literal sense. The title is symbolic.
If a lot of the Genesis stories are myths, then subsequent Biblical stories are also true in a theological and symbolic sense entirely regardless of any historical truth they may or may not have. The problem with regarding Genesis is historically true is that there is little or no evidence to suggest that it is.
3) Now, clearly a lot of the evidence would have vanished by now whatever the truth of the matter, but the problem is (as Dr. Cresswell points out) that the evidence that does survive is largely if not entirely against much of Genesis being historically accurate .
4) Qouting Jesus from the Gospels in an attempt to prove that Genesis is literal and historical isn't really a very impressive move. While it is possible that Jesus did think that, there is ample evidence that the canonical Gospel Evangelists made errors, had different theologies, contradicted each other, qouted from each other (with the possible exception of John)and sometimes put words in Jesus's mouth in a similair fashion to Plato's accounts of Socrates.
5) As has already been pointed out, the ancients had a different idea of history to us. Literal truth, on my understanding, was less important to them then symbolical truth.
For example, many ancient biographies attempt to pin the person in question into a given "stereotype" rather then giving precise historical details. This is consistent with the ancient view, for example, that what matters about a person is whether they perfrom their given role and this idea can be read about in books on Plato (for example). From my understanding, there was a lot less of a dividing line between history and apologetics in ancient times.
Indeed, the arguement that the canonical Gospel writers were fairly uninterested in the Historical Jesus and merely wrote about the Christ of Faith is perfectly respectable (although I don't fully subscribe to it). The point is, however, that one can't just dismiss the view out of hand.
6) Given that a literalist interpretation lacks historical evidence and isn't required by an informed view of scripture, I think it reasonable to say we have scientific certainty that a lot (note: I do NOT say "all) of Genesis is ahistorical. Scientific certainty may not be 100% certainty but it doesn't need to be.
7) Yes, there are creationist arguements. The majority of these are PRATTS and lies. Given that I am not a scientist, it may be better to let Karl, Dr. Cresswell and others pick up on these points as, indeed, they have already done.
Ben26 (who seems to have written a rather lengthy reply)
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Why bother to think anything at all in the scriptures is literal?
If Jesus is not raised, we are still dead in our sins, and Christianity is a hoax. Thus I think at least the resurrection part is literal.
Reader Alexis
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Glenn Oldham
Shipmate
# 47
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pftaylor:
So the skeleton was just sticking out of the earth, while the rock grew slowly over it, was it?
If you bothered to read a geology text book you would notice that this ludicrous idea has never been advanced as a means of fossilisation!
If you are going to compare your theory with conventional science at least get the conventional science right!
Glenn
Posts: 910 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
quote:
Originally posted by pftaylor:
So the skeleton was just sticking out of the earth, while the rock grew slowly over it, was it?
If you bothered to read a geology text book you would notice that this ludicrous idea has never been advanced as a means of fossilisation!
If you are going to compare your theory with conventional science at least get the conventional science right!
Glenn
Well, this is Purg, so I'll be nice.
pftaylor - What Glenn says is spot on. I fear that you have got your understanding of mainstream science from the likes of AiG and ICR. This is a little like trying to get an evaluation of the relative merits of mink and fox fur from PETA.
Your quote from Peter's writings demonstrates only that Peter used the story in a way consistent with its being historical. It does not prove Peter thought it was. And it most certainly gives you no basis for your conclusion that "The consistant Christian view is that the Bible is inerrant". Indeed, plenty of evidence has been presented on this thread that this is not the case.
You say:
quote:
To believe that the Flood account is merely figurative is a waste of effort - I'd rather believe it was all a lie.
Your first statement needs support. Why is it a waste of effort? Just because you think it is? You need more than that in Purgatory!.
Your second is of course your own prerogative. You are at least in good company - I know many atheists who would agree with you - the unholy alliance that Louise referred to above. But I for one want to pursue a position that has more options than "historically true" and "lie". You are not obligated to join me.
quote:
There is plenty of evidence that there was a world-wide Flood. for instance, the world contains lots of fossils, supposedly laid down over millions of years.
You haven't read the thread have you? Alan Cresswell has already pointed out why the fossil record is inconsistent with a global flood. But for the record, could you perhaps explain why the flood sorted out ammonite fossils in order of complexity of shell sutures? I'm intrigued. Perhaps you could explain why the flood always put giant sauropods in lower layers than ceratopsian dinosaurs, why primitive birds with reptilian features always appear in lower layers than birds resembling those that live today, and perhaps why the fossilised stomach contents of carnivorous dinosaurs never contain any modern mammalian or bird remains?
Oh, and why no flowering plant fossils are found lower than the Cretaceous would be nice. Your explanation as to how a flood model is more consistent with just these observations alone would be enlightening - I've yet to see one despite desperate efforts by creationists.
You say "allegedly over millions of years" - do you actually know why palaeontologists assign these particular ages to these fossils? Would you like to know?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shrinking Violet
Shipmate
# 4587
|
Posted
I know that archaeologically there is some evidence to support massive flooding in some areas of the world. Question is do all floods from the various regions all point to the same date? One of the problems is that it is hard to compare carbon 14 dating with approximate dates from the bible. Could they be the same flood? ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else.
Posts: 430 | From: Ghana | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Afish, when you get more information I am confident you will see that there could be no global flood.
JJ, read the ninth post on this thread. I presented a single altar call as a historical fact that I personally witnessed. Can't you tell it is not an actual specific historical event but a dramatization? Still, is it not clear what went on? Do you not extract meaning from it? That is how story-telling went in ancient times. Historians and newspaper reporters did not come along until millenia later. You seem to be saying that it reads to you like a factual newspaper account, but we know it to be an event that could not have happened exactly as described. You conclude that it may therefore be the product of fantasy or deliberate deception and we have no way of knowing whether it is of value.
But all we have to do is read the story. I assume you have. What does it mean to you, regardless of whether it really happened as a global flood or not?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shrinking Violet:
I know that archaeologically there is some evidence to support massive flooding in some areas of the world. Question is do all floods from the various regions all point to the same date?
No. In fact there are relatively few archaeologically discovered floods, and there is certainly no one flood at a particular time,
quote:
One of the problems is that it is hard to compare carbon 14 dating with approximate dates from the bible. Could they be the same flood?
You are left asking could which one be the same flood.
What C14 does tell us is that if the sedimentary rock layers were laid down by Noah's flood (as the 'creation scientists' would have us believe), then it happened more than 50,000 years ago, because that is the limit of C14 dating and objects that old have all been found above and within the very top layers of the geological column.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Why bother to think anything at all in the scriptures is literal?
I'm assuming that your post is a reply to me, Janine.
There is a need to weigh up individual cases according to merit. For example, I believe in a literal incarnation and a literal resurrection becouse it is utterly clear that Jesus was no ordinary man (at least, it is IMHO). If Jesus wasn't God, then I see little point in Christianity. I found "The Case Against Christ" and "Who Moved The Stone?" to present a good case for a literal resurrection (despite some minor historical errors etc).
However, the evidence for a literal Noah simply isn't there and, IMO, isn't required from the text. It is worth bearing in mind that the Bible is a series of different books, written by different people, at different times and for different reasons. The fact that some of the books of the Bible primarily use symbol and metaphor does not mean that no book of the Bible is historical or contains any literal history.
The Bible is a very human book that nevertheless points to God. The Bible isn't perfect, but the God it portrays is. I simply don't follow the reasoning that says the Bible is either 100% literally true or 100% false (I'm not saying that is your view Janine, simply that I don't understand the view in question). Everyone is entitled to disagree with my views (obviously) but I think it coherent to accept some parts as literal and to accept other parts as the non-literal word of God whilst still other statements and ideas in the Bible are simply wrong. For example, some of the genealogies in the O.T contradict each other.
Ben26
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
