For Xians - How liberal are you? [Archive]

triadboy

25th May 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY

If one looks at the narative of Genesis 3 the word "serpent" is used, not "snake". Now, the word "serpant" can mean "snake" but it is also used as a symbol of an evil "person". No physical description of the "serpent" is given in Genesis 3.

I disagree:

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made."

Here God made the creature in the creature-making frenzy that preceded this passage.

2:20
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The serpent tells the truth here.

3:14
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Apparently the serpent did not get around on its belly before this. Is there another creature that get around on its belly and that APPEARS to eat dust?

The "serpent" in Genesis 3 is Lucifer, who is a person. He is not a physical person but a spiritual person. He has a "mind', consciousness, and emotions. The "serpent" didn't make Adam and Eve disobey God. [/QUOTE]

Where does it say that the serpent is Lucifer?

They CHOSE to disobey God. God gave them a free will and they chose poorly. [/QUOTE]

So the all-knowing, all seeing god - KNOWING the humans will disobey - damns them and ALL their offspring? Weird god, huh?

Also, hell was not originally created for mankind but for Lucifer and his followers.[/QUOTE]

Where is that written?

I agree with Finella. The poll is not an accurate barometer of how liberal a Christian is. I guess I would classify myself as a conservative Christian... [/QUOTE]

Yeah, I admit the poll was ill-conceived - but I was trying to generate a discussion about the hokey bible stories and how xians relate to them in their faith.

I appreciate any more discussion you can provide.

triadboy

25th May 2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY
Christ died for all people in all times.

Except, of course, the people that lived before Christ. They are writhing in hell as we speak. (ed: not my opinion, but the opinion of fundies)

triadboy

25th May 2003, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY
You are correct in that if there is no historical "Adam and Eve" then there is no need for Jesus to die for us. Genesis is really the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It sets up the background of why Jesus came to Earth to die for all mankind.

I agree. Now with the discovery that all people on earth are related to a 'woman' in Africa 50,000 year ago (from mitochondrial DNA) - Do you consider her 'Eve' or do you deny that this is the truth?

stamenflicker

26th May 2003, 06:35 AM

By definiton "redemption" is an external act. The word means to "release or freedom on payment of a price, deliverance by a costly method." So this cannot be done internally. Christ died for all people in all times.

Perhaps at its source and origin the word constitutes an external act, from the bondservant (fancy way to say slave) history-- even in terms of the crucifixion and resurrection it refers to an external act, true or not true. But it remains an internal concept as we are removed from the event by history, hence the terms "believe & faith."

If we are to take the concept to extremes, which I have no desire to do, at what point should the literal external act bring redemption? Blood letting? Death? I.E. the Lamb of God?

If so, how do we justify such a sacrifice motif for salvation in the face of so many prophets who claim that God "desires mercy, not sacrifice?"

Flick

LCBOY

26th May 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

I disagree:

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made."

Here God made the creature in the creature-making frenzy that preceded this passage.

2:20
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The serpent tells the truth here.

3:14
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Apparently the serpent did not get around on its belly before this. Is there another creature that get around on its belly and that APPEARS to eat dust?

The "serpent" in Genesis 3 is Lucifer, who is a person. He is not a physical person but a spiritual person. He has a "mind', consciousness, and emotions. The "serpent" didn't make Adam and Eve disobey God.

Where does it say that the serpent is Lucifer?

They CHOSE to disobey God. God gave them a free will and they chose poorly. [/QUOTE]

So the all-knowing, all seeing god - KNOWING the humans will disobey - damns them and ALL their offspring? Weird god, huh?

Also, hell was not originally created for mankind but for Lucifer and his followers.[/QUOTE]

Where is that written?

I agree with Finella. The poll is not an accurate barometer of how liberal a Christian is. I guess I would classify myself as a conservative Christian... [/QUOTE]

Yeah, I admit the poll was ill-conceived - but I was trying to generate a discussion about the hokey bible stories and how xians relate to them in their faith.

I appreciate any more discussion you can provide. [/QUOTE]

Oops, you are right. I did not do sufficient reading. After God cursed the serpent it's for was changed to walk on it's belly and eat the dust. Ezekiel 28 speaks of the someone who was an annointed cherub in the Garden of Eden. This is Lucifer or satan of whatever you want to call him.

You brought up the point that God KNEW that mankind would rebel and he still created them and punished then. People become parents even thought they KNOW that their children will be disobedient at times, rude at times, dishonest, at times, etc. Yet they still have children. God is similar. Even though mankind rebels against Him, He still loves mankind. I don't think it is wierd at all that He KNEW man would disobey and he stil created us. I don't claim to understand everything about God, but I try very hard to read and understand His Word to gain understanding about who I am.

I like you, triadboy. You ask tough hard-hitting questions. Questions like yours force me to really think about what I believe and I thank you for that. :)

LCBOY

26th May 2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

I agree. Now with the discovery that all people on earth are related to a 'woman' in Africa 50,000 year ago (from mitochondrial DNA) - Do you consider her 'Eve' or do you deny that this is the truth?

From my understanding the mitochondrial Eve theory is a controversial theory. There is great debate between geneticists and paleontologists over this issue. I'll need to read more on this issue before I can respond intelligently. I'll get back to you.

LCBOY

26th May 2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by stamenflicker
By definiton "redemption" is an external act. The word means to "release or freedom on payment of a price, deliverance by a costly method." So this cannot be done internally. Christ died for all people in all times.

Perhaps at its source and origin the word constitutes an external act, from the bondservant (fancy way to say slave) history-- even in terms of the crucifixion and resurrection it refers to an external act, true or not true. But it remains an internal concept as we are removed from the event by history, hence the terms "believe & faith."

If we are to take the concept to extremes, which I have no desire to do, at what point should the literal external act bring redemption? Blood letting? Death? I.E. the Lamb of God?

If so, how do we justify such a sacrifice motif for salvation in the face of so many prophets who claim that God "desires mercy, not sacrifice?"

Flick

I am not sure how time makes redemption an internal act? When Jesus died, that was when the price for redemption was paid. God desires realtionship with all people. This was made possible through the Jesus Christ. No sacrifice is required any longer. Redemption has been paid for already.

triadboy

26th May 2003, 01:14 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LCBOY

You brought up the point that God KNEW that mankind would rebel and he still created them and punished then. People become parents even thought they KNOW that their children will be disobedient at times, rude at times, dishonest, at times, etc. Yet they still have children. God is similar. Even though mankind rebels against Him, He still loves mankind. I don't think it is wierd at all that He KNEW man would disobey and he stil created us.

God's 'children' disobey him - so he causes 'death' to be upon them and all their offspring and every man and woman that follow. He causes the man to have to toil and the woman to bear great pain giving birth. Wow, what a sweetheart!

In the next scene when his children disobey him - he says 'screw it' and wipes everybody out (innocent babies too!) and starts over with old drunken Noah! (Doesn't this have the ring of a 'story' to you?)

When my children disobey me, I don't wipe them out ...or put a curse on them and my grandchildren!! God acts very irrational in the OT. (He really needed the makeover the NT gave him)

Don't you think Ezekiel is weird?

Ezekiel's strange visions. 1:5-10, 10:12

Ezekiel sees God's loins. 1:27, 8:2

Ezekiel, at God's command, eats a book that tastes as sweet as honey. 2:9 - 3:3

If a good person does something wrong after God "lays a stumbling block before him," then God will kill him. "He shall die in his sin" and whatever good he has done will be forgotten. 3:20

God tells Ezekiel to eat barley cakes that are made with the "dung that cometh out of man." 4:12

God trades "cow's dung for man's dung" and then tells Ezekiel to make bread out of the cow's dung. 4:15

God tells Ezekiel to shave his head and beard, divide the cut hair into thirds, burn one portion, smite the second with a knife, and scatter the third in the wind. 5:1-3

God will cause fathers to eat their sons and sons to eat their fathers. 5:10

God plans to kill everyone with plagues, famines, and wars. But if any still survive, then he'll send beasts to devour them. 5:17

God plans to decorate the land with human bones and dead bodies. 6:5

God marks the foreheads of the men who will be saved. To God only men are worth keeping. All of the women and unmarked men are to be slaughtered. God will "fill the courts with the slain" and will have pity on no one. 9:4

God dislikes women and pillows. He says, "Woe to the women that sew pillows ... behold, I am against your pillows." 13:15-20

God deceives some of his prophets and then kills them for believing his lies. 14:9

Big penises. 16:26

Good men stay away from menstruating women. 18:6

God gave the Israelites "statutes that were not good and judgments whereby they should not live." He "polluted" them so that later he'd have an excuse to kill them. 20:25

A tale of two sisters. 23:1-46

Really big penises. 23:20

God gets all excited about cooking human flesh and "scum." 24:3-10

God kills Ezekiel's wife and tells him not to mourn her. 24:15-18

God makes "all their loins to be at a stand" and then cuts them off. 29:7-8

God shows Ezekiel how to join together dead peoples bones and then bring them back to life. 37:7-10

God will cause every man's sword to be against his brother. By doing so he will magnify and sanctify himself and let everyone know that he's the Lord. 38:21-23

God is preparing a feast for the birds and beasts. He's going to have them eat human flesh until they're full and drink human blood until they're drunk. 39:4, 17-20

LCBOY

26th May 2003, 02:27 PM

Wow triadboy!

You've spent quite some time in the Scriptures. I am very impressed. It will take me quite some time to read all of Ezekiel. I'll try to put into context the passages that you have stated. But I will respond, I promise.

As for Noah. You have conviently left out why God detroyed all mankind except for Noah

Genesis 6:5-7:

5 "Then the Lord saw that that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

6 "And the LORD was sorry that he made man on earth, and He was grieved in His heart."

7 "So the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

God didn't destroy the earth because people were simply disobedient. Mankind had become arrogant, prideful, lustful, and evil in their hearts. This doesn't necessarily mean that every person was violent or a wicked in action but wicked in their heart. But I wasn't there so I cannot be 100% sure. Eventually all evil must be punished.

Let me ask a question about children. If a child commits a violent crime should that person be punished? If a parent finds out that one of their children has commited a violent crime (say rape or murder), should that parent make sure their child is punished for their crimes? God destroyed mankind because their actions warranted death. When your children were misbehaving, or disobedient did you punish them? Of course you didn't kill your children because

1) Our society has laws against parents killing their childen, even if the child's actions warrant death.

2) Your children have NOT behaved in a way that warrants a death sentence.

You said Noah was drunk, which he was. However again you left out why God chose Noah.

Genesis 6:8-9:

"But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD."

"These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time. Noah walked with God."

Also Genesis 7:1:

"Then the Lord said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and your household: for you alone I have seen to be righteous before me in this time."

Noah was chosen NOT because he was a nice guy, or treated his family and others well, or he fed the homeless, etc. He was chosen because he recognized who God was and followed God, and he was obedient to God. When God told him to build the ark, I'm sure he thought this was weird. I probably would have, too! But I believe that, like Noah, I would have enough faith and trust God and just be obedient.

I agree that God does things that doesn't always make sense to us. But this does not mean God is irrational. If the God of the Bible really exists and He is the Creator of everything, I would think he is just a "little smarter than us". :D

triadboy

26th May 2003, 06:07 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LCBOY

As for Noah. You have conviently left out why God detroyed all mankind except for Noah

Genesis 6:5-7:

5 "Then the Lord saw that that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

6 "And the LORD was sorry that he made man on earth, and He was grieved in His heart."

7 "So the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

God didn't destroy the earth because people were simply disobedient. Mankind had become arrogant, prideful, lustful, and evil in their hearts. This doesn't necessarily mean that every person was violent or a wicked in action but wicked in their heart. But I wasn't there so I cannot be 100% sure. Eventually all evil must be punished.

But this doesn't stack up with 8:21:

"And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth ; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

He kills everybody because the human imagination is evil. Then he promises never to do it again because the human imagination is evil. (huh?) Weird god!

2) Your children have NOT behaved in a way that warrants a death sentence.

Did the babies who died in the flood warrent a death sentence? But of course you realize I know there wasn't a flood as described in the bible.

You said Noah was drunk, which he was. However again you left out why God chose Noah.

"These are the records of the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time. Noah walked with God."

2 Chr.6:36 - "There is no man which sinneth not."

Do you know the story of Gilgamesh?

Finella

26th May 2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

That's exactly what I want...thank you!

The first thing I'd like to talk about is:

The talking snake causes man's fall. So now there is a hell. Since there is a hell, Jesus has to come back as Second Adam and sacrifice himself so we, who are tainted with the sins of Adam, can be saved and go to heaven.

If you just say - the talking snake is a story - or Adam and Eve weren't really the first people. (Which is what I believe) Doesn't that screw up Christianity? Because now there is no need for Jesus to come back to save us. Without the talking snake - there is no resurrection.

I don't believe in the literal 'talking snake'; but I do believe in the truth of the larger story. Temptation and the free will given to us by God (the 'talking snake' and the possibility of eating of the Tree of Knowledge) led to our seeking our own way, in direct opposition to God's desire for us.

The "historical truth" in this story is that this happened on a larger scale. It's also a complex story, with the truth best expressed in these terms which take on mythic reality. Same goes for the creation story. Same could go for the crucifixtion story, for all I know. The historical truth is not necessary for me to have faith in the Truth of God and the messages of these Biblical passages.

That's the best I can explain it now... perhaps later I can get into more detail. Madeleine L'Engle does a wonderful job of story as truth in a lot of her writings... I'll try to see if I can find a link.

triadboy

26th May 2003, 08:12 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella

I don't believe in the literal 'talking snake'; but I do believe in the truth of the larger story. Temptation and the free will given to us by God (the 'talking snake' and the possibility of eating of the Tree of Knowledge) led to our seeking our own way, in direct opposition to God's desire for us.

I understand you are liberal, but you obviously don't believe evolution, by phrases like 'given to us' and 'led to our seeking'. You seem to believe the Adam and Eve story as truth. Are you an Old Earther or a Young Earther?

The "historical truth" in this story is that this happened on a larger scale. It's also a complex story, with the truth best expressed in these terms which take on mythic reality. Same goes for the creation story. Same could go for the crucifixtion story, for all I know. The historical truth is not necessary for me to have faith in the Truth of God and the messages of these Biblical passages.

But the message is insistent that you believe the stories as written or the fabric unravels. The story of Jonah is an obvious myth. And yet Jesus says, "Just as Jonah was in the whale..." Now does this mean Jesus is naive?

I believe the story of Cain and Abel is a VERY old story from our oldest ancestors about the discontent of the farming community (Cain) with the nomadic herding community (Abel). The farming communities won out - Cain slew Abel. This story was tacked onto another popular story - Adam and Eve. But there is nothing spiritual there for me.

CWL

27th May 2003, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by KS_SKEPTIC
You forgot to add "None Of The Above "!!! :mad:
okay okay so I'm not a Xian!!!:eek:

Triadboy,

Or all of the above. Not that I do - I am not a Christian either. Just wanted to point out that this poll would have been better as a multiple option poll IMO. How do you quantify or grade belief?

triadboy

27th May 2003, 08:12 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CWL

Or all of the above. Not that I do - I am not a Christian either. Just wanted to point out that this poll would have been better as a multiple option poll IMO.

You are right - I could have produced a better poll.

How do you quantify or grade belief?

1. You have a set of miracle/outlandish stories that you believe are actually history

2. You have a set of miracle/outlandish stories that are not to be taken as history, but as a teaching story relaying a life message.

Christian

27th May 2003, 03:33 PM

We have been in this path so many times. It leads to the same place, the starting point.

There is one thing I do want to address. That has to do with the nature of God. The OT God is the same consistent NT God.

triadboy

27th May 2003, 05:30 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian
We have been in this path so many times. It leads to the same place, the starting point.

If I can cause just one Christian to step back a think a minute - I've done my job. Who knows - they might see the light of reality!

There is one thing I do want to address. That has to do with the nature of God. The OT God is the same consistent NT God.

I see those two gods as different. The OT God is this jealous, worried, arrogant, offensive, cruel mental case, who is an embarassment to mankind.

The NT god's nature is told to us by his "son", Jeebus. He gets a much lighter treatment. And if you'll notice in the NT - there isn't a lot of smiting going on. As a matter of fact, I can't think of one person God kills in the NT - surely I must be wrong, but I can't think of one now.

Finella

27th May 2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
I understand you are liberal, but you obviously don't believe evolution, by phrases like 'given to us' and 'led to our seeking'. You seem to believe the Adam and Eve story as truth. Are you an Old Earther or a Young Earther?
::shakes head again::

I believe it to be true, and I also believe in evolution. The whole creation story is a symbolic simplification of the creation and evolution of the world. Adam and Eve symbolize the earliest consciousness of humankind in this world. The serpent symbolizes our departure from God's will -- after we became aware of God and his/her will for our existence.

So you tell me, am I an "Old" or "Young Earther"? or.... neither? ;)

But the message is insistent that you believe the stories as written or the fabric unravels. The story of Jonah is an obvious myth. And yet Jesus says, "Just as Jonah was in the whale..." Now does this mean Jesus is naive? What message is "insistent"? What kind of truth must it have? You do not seem to yet understand the Truth in story as opposed to historical truth. Let me try again.

Remember 2nd grade? Remember your teacher's name there, the way the classroom looked, every detail you can think of from the daily schedule of your class to the names of your friends to the colors and shades and textures of your clothes from that time. These are the historical "truth" facts of your second grade.

Now, remember what you as a person was like -- the stuggles and triumphs you experienced, the experiences you had at that time. the meaning you got out of your year at that school. The stories you still tell from that time. This is the story Truth, this is about You. The facts don't tell about You, they tell about the facts. The meaning comes only in how you responded to those facts.

The Bible story (in the whole collection of stories, I mean) is how humankind responded to God; the struggles, the things we got wrong, the things we got right. The things we learned, the things we still don't understand. It is the meaning of our relationship with God. It says as much about the human race as it says about God. It may even say more about humans, actually.

This story was tacked onto another popular story - Adam and Eve. But there is nothing spiritual there for me. That may be because you do not yet understand the greater Truth to it.

Finella

27th May 2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Christian
We have been in this path so many times. It leads to the same place, the starting point.

There is one thing I do want to address. That has to do with the nature of God. The OT God is the same consistent NT God.

Hi, Christian.

My thought on this is that yes, God always was the same... but our perception of God was different between the OT and the NT.

triadboy

27th May 2003, 06:42 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella

::shakes head again::

I believe it to be true, and I also believe in evolution. The whole creation story is a symbolic simplification of the creation and evolution of the world. Adam and Eve symbolize the earliest consciousness of humankind in this world. The serpent symbolizes our departure from God's will -- after we became aware of God and his/her will for our existence.

::sighs and hops on one leg::

You are struggling mightedly to stay true to the science you know is fact and still maintain the faith you just know ain't true.

How do ignorant nomadic tribespeople know how to simplify evolution? The creation story is the best science from the year 2000 BC. It wasn't the jews who created it - it had been passed down for ages. The stars are fixed to a firmament - a clear, hard device encircling the world. It lets rain through. That's not a simplification - that's a best guess! As with most of the bible stories - simplification would be better served with the truth.

Finella

27th May 2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

::sighs and hops on one leg::

You are struggling mightedly to stay true to the science you know is fact and still maintain the faith you just know ain't true.

How do ignorant nomadic tribespeople know how to simplify evolution? The creation story is the best science from the year 2000 BC. It wasn't the jews who created it - it had been passed down for ages. The stars are fixed to a firmament - a clear, hard device encircling the world. It lets rain through. That's not a simplification - that's a best guess! As with most of the bible stories - simplification would be better served with the truth.

::sighs:: then now is apparently not the time when you'll get it. I think you will get it someday -- because of the nature of the questions you ask.

Just know that there are more kinds of Truth than the hard, scientific truth. That is how people can have faith even as they understand the amazing reality and truth of science. You'll just have to learn it on your own.

edited to add: the creation story was not at all meant to be "the best science from the year 2000 BC (which I hardly believe to be the correct year anyway, but that is irrelevant). It always was meant to be a myth. Think outside the science and the fundamentalist Christian box.

triadboy

27th May 2003, 08:14 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella

edited to add: the creation story was not at all meant to be "the best science from the year 2000 BC (which I hardly believe to be the correct year anyway, but that is irrelevant). It always was meant to be a myth. Think outside the science and the fundamentalist Christian box.

::sighs, shakes head, spits and then looks up at the sky in amazement!::

Bad Science is EXACTLY what it is! (I speak mainly of the portion of Genesis written under Babylonian captivity) All the common threads are there. The firmament was taken for granted by the people of that time. It separated the upper waters from the lower waters. The stars, sun and moon were mysteriously attached to the firmament "as signs". Is it in your faith to read the zodiac? These people did.

The plants were created before the sun - because they didn't know about photosynthesis.

God made two great lights. But the moon is not a light. But they didn't know that then did they?

Do I think there are myths forwarded in the bible? Yes of course. But there is also bad science. And for you to take bad science and force it to be glorious myth misses the mark. There are some things that aren't myths. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I would suggest reading Asimovs Guide to the Bible and all the Joseph Campbell you can get your hands on.

triadboy

27th May 2003, 08:23 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella

The Bible story (in the whole collection of stories, I mean) is how humankind responded to God; the struggles, the things we got wrong, the things we got right. The things we learned, the things we still don't understand. It is the meaning of our relationship with God. It says as much about the human race as it says about God. It may even say more about humans, actually.

How did 'god' communicate with humankind? You say the bible is "the meaning of our relationship with God". Which stories convey the communication that occurred between God and Man?
And how did that communication manifest itself?

I believe God was created by man. All over the world - throughout history - when man is faced with the unknown, a god is fashioned to explain it.

What is god to you, Finella? ::sigh:: ::burp::

triadboy

27th May 2003, 08:44 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella

It always was meant to be a myth. Think outside the science and the fundamentalist Christian box.

Here are some of the things you think are myth and I think is bad science:

- Clams, oysters, crabs and lobsters are abominations to God
- Stay away from wizards
- Four-legged birds are an abomination to God
- Insects have four legs
- Baby girls are twice as dirty as baby boys
- Bats are birds
- Hares are unclean since they chew the cud
- 300 foot tall giants used to live amoung us
- Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart (what the...!)

There are no mythic qualities in these directives - this is the knowledge of the time. (and only a small portion) ;-)

UnrepentantSinner

27th May 2003, 09:24 PM

As an atheist, I have 2 conflicting views on the literalness of the Bible, one my own, the other, held by my less fundamentalist friends.

For me, Genesis, especially the Eden narrative just doesn't ring true. If there was no tree in Eden, then what happened on the tree on Golgotha is meaningless.

For my believer friends, most of them take the Torah to be at least semi-allegorical. Some allow literalness after the Eden Narrative, others reject literalness until the time of Joshuah. I have no problem with my "creationist" friends who don't see Genesis as being literal.

triadboy

27th May 2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

For me, Genesis, especially the Eden narrative just doesn't ring true. If there was no tree in Eden, then what happened on the tree on Golgotha is meaningless.

You must remember, though, that there are at least two authors of Genesis, one story is handed down from 700 BC (through Israel, but probably earlier by oral tradition) - Adam and Eve. And one was generated during (or right after) the Babylonian Captivity (the beginning..."on the first day..."etc). Then later you have priests who "correct" the bible to glorify the King on the throne at the time (Ezra is a prime culprit). And the Deuteronomist who pretty much fixed up a lot of stuff to his liking.

You are correct - the Eden story is a sitting around the campfire farting yarn that has its origins WAY in the past. I would wager the Sumarians are the originators of the Eden story. And let's face it, isn't gambling on bible stories, what it is all about?

You also hit the nail on the head about the tree. Only I said, If there was no talking snake there's no need for a resurrection.

ehbowen

27th May 2003, 11:51 PM

You left out a button for "All of the above."

Since I didn't have that option, which I would have chosen, I picked the last option, the resurrection of Jesus, for that is the linchpin upon which all of Christianity rests. If Christ is not, in fact, literally and physically resurrected from the dead, then, as Paul said, we are of all people most to be pitied. But if Christ is in fact risen and the tomb is empty, as attested to by the Gospel writers, affirmed by the first-century Christian phenomenon, and indirectly supported by the silence of those who sought to stamp out this movement, then there is nothing else in the Bible which is too difficult to believe. And I believe it all.

CWL

28th May 2003, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by triadboy
Originally posted by CWL
Or all of the above. Not that I do - I am not a Christian either.
Just wanted to point out that this poll would have been better as a multiple option poll IMO.

You are right - I could have produced a better poll.
We all strive for perfection. ;)

Actually, I think your idea was very interesting. Perhaps you can simply ask Hal to edit the poll to allow multiple choices?

How do you quantify or grade belief?

1. You have a set of miracle/outlandish stories that you believe are actually history

2. You have a set of miracle/outlandish stories that are not to be taken as history, but as a teaching story relaying a life message.

Ok. I see what you are getting at.

Christian

28th May 2003, 08:50 AM

Triadboy wrote:
If I can cause just one Christian to step back a think a minute - I've done my job. Who knows - they might see the light of reality!

I don't blame you for having this naive view. I had it for the longest time. It seems to me that you want to bound others by a standard that you cannot uphold yourself.

Are you claiming you know *reality*? I would challenge that you do. And if you did, what would be the point of science for you(that which you seem to hold dear)?

I see those two gods as different. The OT God is this jealous, worried, arrogant, offensive, cruel mental case, who is an embarassment to mankind.

What else would an atheist say. I hope you can see these characterizations are a matter of opinion, and just that. And opinions are a dime a dozen.

Finella wrote:
Hi, Christian.

My thought on this is that yes, God always was the same... but our perception of God was different between the OT and the NT.

I think this is a valid point.

One of the elements that must be considered, IMHO, is that there will be contradictions if we take the non-literal approach in some passages and not in others. From all of the discussions I've had, the Bible pretty much holds its own in terms of reliability.

It is my opinion that triadboy has just digged up material from websites and the like. To these discussions, there is always a counterargument which should be solid enough for Christians (scientifically speaking) and not contradictory to scripture.

Because he is going all over the place with many examples, it would be too long to refute each one. But if he were to choose one example (any he chose) of scripture failure, we could address that one and see what we come up with.

triadboy

28th May 2003, 04:21 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ehbowen
You left out a button for "All of the above."

You're right, I apologize.

But if Christ is in fact risen and the tomb is empty, as attested to by the Gospel writers...

Mark was the first Gospel but ended at 16:8 in the oldest scriptures we have. (Additionally, when the church fathers speak of Mark, they never mention anything from 16:9 - 20) Mark was written 70-75AD - that's 40 years after Jesus was supposedly crucified. Mark never met Jesus.

Matthew and Luke were written ~50-60 years after Jesus. John is completely in left field with his gospel (70 AD). He says things that are completely out of line with the synoptics.

We have no eyewitnesses to the events that are primary to the Christian religion.

...affirmed by the first-century Christian phenomenon, ...

You can't really use that as a reason for the event. Mithraism was bigger than Christianity in the first century. And it wasn't based on an event - it was based on myth.

...and indirectly supported by the silence of those who sought to stamp out this movement, ...

I believe that silence is called death.

triadboy

28th May 2003, 04:25 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian
But if he were to choose one example (any he chose) of scripture failure, we could address that one and see what we come up with.

I will choose Noah's Ark! The goofiest mixed up story in the bible, in my opinion.

Do you believe in the universal flood?

Finella

28th May 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
Here are some of the things you think are myth and I think is bad science:

- Clams, oysters, crabs and lobsters are abominations to God
- Stay away from wizards
- Four-legged birds are an abomination to God
- Insects have four legs
- Baby girls are twice as dirty as baby boys
- Bats are birds
- Hares are unclean since they chew the cud
- 300 foot tall giants used to live amoung us
- Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart (what the...!)

There are no mythic qualities in these directives - this is the knowledge of the time. (and only a small portion) ;-) ::sips thoughfully from a cup of tea::

Dearest Triadboy.

Those "directives", as you call them, are removed from the context of the larger story. You have taken the fact that the tortoise (as in the tortoise and the hare story, for example) was slow and left it isolated, taken it apart from the rest of the tale, and said, "it's just a slow tortoise! Nothing more! This whole story is meaningless! It's bad science!"

As I said earlier, but not directly to you, our perception of God was different between the OT and the NT. All those things you cited are ways we tried to relate to God. Some things we got wrong. Some helped people at the time relate more meaningfully to God as they understood him/her at the time.

You're still in the science box. And I don't blame you for being there -- fundy Christianity has been trying to use science to prove its truth for many years. We all know it falls well short of meeting scientific standards, but what then results is people becoming disenchanted because they think somehow science is the only way to "prove"God. I'm telling you it's not the only way. Because there's more kinds of existence than the scientific, external observable reality which science can study. There's other kinds of reality, and thus other kinds of Truth, which science cannot study, and rightly so. That is not its domain.

By limiting God to some kind of scientific reality, the fundies have limited God and thus limited their ability to find God. They never will that way.

::runs off because the pizza is done:: I'll write more later... I'm looking for some Madeliene L'Engle for you.

triadboy

28th May 2003, 05:24 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian
Triadboy wrote:
If I can cause just one Christian to step back a think a minute - I've done my job. Who knows - they might see the light of reality!
It seems to me that you want to bound others by a standard that you cannot uphold yourself.

That's the beauty of skepticism. It DOESN'T bind. Christianity, on the other hand, has bound people down through the ages...and continues to bind the minds of its followers.

Are you claiming you know *reality*? I would challenge that you do. And if you did, what would be the point of science for you(that which you seem to hold dear)?

I think reality is pointed to by what we discover (through science) and what we know, a priori, is real. Christianity requires me to believe in talking snakes, talking asses, eternal damnation, an angelic afterlife, people raising the dead, corpses leaving their graves and walking around, invisible gods, ghosts, water turning into wine, three people who are really one, etc. (The list goes on and on.) There is no proof this stuff happened and it goes directly against what I know is reality. The only possible way I could believe such stories is if I (somehow) suspended all my knowledge of reality and became a faith zombie. (I know I couldn't do it though.) As Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing in something you just know ain't true."

I see those two gods as different. The OT God is this jealous, worried, arrogant, offensive, cruel mental case, who is an embarassment to mankind.

What else would an atheist say. I hope you can see these characterizations are a matter of opinion, and just that. And opinions are a dime a dozen.

Finella wrote:
Hi, Christian.

My thought on this is that yes, God always was the same... but our perception of God was different between the OT and the NT.

I think the authors of the OT were writing about their tribal God and using Him to advance their causes. (Land grabbing, clerical power, King power, etc) The stories were meant to scare their own people and their enemies.

The NT authors had no agenda like this.

From all of the discussions I've had, the Bible pretty much holds its own in terms of reliability.

Have you read the bible!? There are so many errors and just plain wrong things in the bible - its reliability should never pop up as something to be proud of.

It is my opinion that triadboy has just digged up material from websites and the like.

I got my Masters in Humanities in 1993 - wrote my thesis on Christianity. I have been studying Comparative Religion and mythology ever since. I just can't get enough of it.

LCBOY

28th May 2003, 05:39 PM

I just like to add a bit.

Triadboy,

I just want to share that five years ago I came to realize that God really exists and He is not a creation of man. I went through an experience that defies any material explanation. I didn't become a Christian becasue someone proved to me that God exists, or that that the earth is 6,000 years old, or the Noah's Flood really happened. It was after I took a chance and put my faith in Christ that I realized that the Bible is true. I was not raised in a Christian home and I was 30 when I became a Christian, so I wasn't culturely guided to become a Christian.

I can go on an on why I believe that Noah's flood ocurred, or show why Moses could not have "borrowed" from Gilgamesh, or show you why I believe Jesus actually was resurrected physically, but I don't think it would move you.

The Bible is not a history, archeological, astronomy, or genetics book. But when it touches on these subject (thought not in great detail) I believe it to be accurate. This is based on five years of study and reading and praying, asking God to reveals HIS truth to me. I realize this maybe considered a subjective experience and it is. However I am a skeptic by nature and I don't just accept anything without spending a considerable amount of time thinking about it, pondering it, and studying it.

I can say that since I became a Christian and spending time reading God's Word my life has changed considerably, and for the better. I have had opportunity to make positive influences on people's lives here in the US and abroad. This would not have happened if I did not become a Christian.

Finella

28th May 2003, 06:27 PM

Dearest Triadboy....

Here's some Madeleine L'Engle for you. The whole interview (http://www.theotherside.org/archive/mar-apr98/lengle.html) is quite good, but these are the more relevant bits. Tell you what, I'll try to find me some Joseph Campbell and Asimov (love Asimov, but I'll read more if you insist) if you read some Madeleine L'Engle.

Just take it in, think on it.

___________________________________
How does imagination interact with faith?

"For me, imagination is essential--because what I believe is not in the realm of fact. At night, I go out to the most gorgeous view of the sky and wonder that the Maker of all these galaxies-- and those fifty billion other galaxies we just discovered--came down to be one of us. You can't put that into language of fact.
I've discovered that many Christians, perhaps especially evangelicals, fear imagination [Finella adds, many scientists also!]. Just last year, it occurred to me why. In the King James version, which many Christians use as their only translation, imagination is always a bad word. I went through and found phrases like "Put them down in the imagination of their hearts" or "their imaginations are always only to do evil." In the 1600s, imagination was a negative word. I find myself using many translations. For instance, I like Eugene Peterson's The Message. I sometimes switch to French to try to get a fresher feeling....

"Nothing we do changes God--it just changes what we think about God. When we discovered that the earth is not the center of the universe, it didn't change God. It just changed us, and what we think. We have to be willing to allow what we think to change."

triadboy

28th May 2003, 07:08 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LCBOY
I just want to share that five years ago I came to realize that God really exists and He is not a creation of man. I went through an experience that defies any material explanation. I didn't become a Christian becasue someone proved to me that God exists, or that that the earth is 6,000 years old, or the Noah's Flood really happened.

I discovered by beliefs by reading the bible. That was the first thing I had to do for my Masters was read Genesis. What an eye-opener.

I assume you are a young person: In the 70s there was this musician named Cat Stevens who had an epiphany also (while drowning)....but he turned to Islam. That god Allah is the same as the OT god you know. But it IS NOT the NT god you know, because Islam does not recognize 3 people wrapped up like a burrito.

People have religious epiphanies all over the world and relate them to the gods of their choice. (Do you doubt Hindus have religious epiphanies?) Does this dilute your experience? Probably not, but you must admit (in this context) - your god is no more special than Allah or Brahma or Buddha or Ahura Mazda.

So either all of you are right, one of you is right, or none of you are right. And of course, as a Christian you will claim to be right.

I understand you think the universe is 6000 years old?!

Astrophysics, geology, biology, geography, paleontology, etc. are all sciences...but they are DIFFERENT disciplines! They don't owe any allegiance to each other. Yet they all agree - independently - that the universe is much much older than 6000 years. But you seem to believe in a Trickster God, who creates light as if it had left a star millions of light-years ago.

And that Noahs Flood really happened?!

Evidence of a universal flood would be able to be observed if it occured. It is not. I could go on about the dimensions of the boat and the billions of insects that would have to be onboard and the years supply of eucalyptus plants for the Koala Bears Noahs family had to get from Australia, and they only had one window(!), but you wouldn't hear it anyway.

I can go on an on why I believe that Noah's flood ocurred, or show why Moses could not have "borrowed" from Gilgamesh, or show you why I believe Jesus actually was resurrected physically, but I don't think it would move you.

LCBOY - this is what I want!

The Bible is not a history, archeological, astronomy, or genetics book. But when it touches on these subject (thought not in great detail) I believe it to be accurate.

I am willing to begin a discussion on inaccuracies in the bible.

I can say that since I became a Christian and spending time reading God's Word my life has changed considerably, and for the better.

I can say that since I became an Atheist and spending time reading Campbell and Science books, my life has changed considerably, and for the better. I was 38 when I got my Masters and realized the truth. I had always ignored religion. But after rigorous study and deep introspection - I realized I didn't believe! The mental chains of sin and hell fell away. The relief was overwhelming.

triadboy

28th May 2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Finella

Here's some Madeleine L'Engle for you. Tell you what, I'll try to find me some Joseph Campbell and Asimov (love Asimov, but I'll read more if you insist) if you read some Madeleine L'Engle.

I will read it.

There is a boxed VHS set of Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyer I'd love to get. It's called The Power Of Myth It comes on at the beginning of every year on PBS. The Power Of Myth is also a book.

Read The Hero With A Thousand Faces. It's excellent!

LCBOY

28th May 2003, 08:39 PM

Triadboy,

It sounds like we took very different paths to our happiness, contentment, and peace in our lives. That is great! I am happy that you broke the "chains" of religion. I really am.

Oh, and by the way I do not believe I ever stated that I believed the Earth is 6000 years old. ;)

triadboy

28th May 2003, 08:43 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella
Here's some Madeleine L'Engle for you.

I read it. She is definitely a liberal Christian. She doesn't appear to believe the mythic stories are history. But she is constantly referring to Jesus and God. (Duh! She's Christian) That's the strange part to an atheist. Why does there HAVE to be an invisible creature watching over us?

She didn't mention whether she thought Jesus was God too. As you probably know, Thomas Jefferson liked the Jesus story, but hated the miracles that cheapened the story - so he rewrote the NT without the miracles and wound up with the story of a sage. Even though Jefferson was a deist, I admired his progressiveness in creating a story he could believe.

However, Madeleine talked about Jesus healing people - would she be shocked to learn it never happened? I wonder.

LCBOY

28th May 2003, 08:52 PM

I read "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" when I was in college back in the mid 80s. I think I'll read it again.

Triadboy, are there other Joseph Campbell books you can recommend?

Finella

29th May 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by triadboy

I read it. She is definitely a liberal Christian. She doesn't appear to believe the mythic stories are history. But she is constantly referring to Jesus and God. (Duh! She's Christian) That's the strange part to an atheist. Why does there HAVE to be an invisible creature watching over us?

Yep, she's pretty liberal, but widely accepted in Christian circles. She speaks at Christian colleges all the time, and speaks her mind about their theology! :)

Some people have always felt God's presence. When she says in the interview that belief is "in her genes", I can relate -- I'm like that, too. I find it incredible that people can't sense God. It's one of those mysteries.

She didn't mention whether she thought Jesus was God too.
The quote I gave you earlier should have told you:
"At night, I go out to the most gorgeous view of the sky and wonder that the Maker of all these galaxies-- and those fifty billion other galaxies we just discovered--came down to be one of us." Hmmm?

However, Madeleine talked about Jesus healing people - would she be shocked to learn it never happened? I wonder.
Would you be shocked to learn that it did?

::shrug:: Really, there's no way to show you as long as you stay in the science box. And, besides, you seem comfy there. But if you really, really want to know how it is that people believe these things, and all your study thus far has not yet satisfied your question, then you need to get outside of your comfort zone.

Suggested reading of Ms. L'Engle: The Rock That is Higher: Story as Truth, or even Sold Into Egypt: Joseph's Journey Into Human Being, which focuses on Joseph's story in the bible in the way I've been talking about. Most of her books, especially these latter ones, have this theme, so you can't really go wrong. They're not too long, and they're enjoyable reads.

I will definitely check out Campbell's Hero... when I next make it to the library. It does sound good! :)

Christian

29th May 2003, 01:22 PM

Triadboy wrote:
I will choose Noah's Ark! The goofiest mixed up story in the bible, in my opinion.

Do you believe in the universal flood?

Ok, let's do Noah. No, I don't believe the flood was universal. It is exactly how it says it happened in the Bible.

Tell me about the goofiest mix up.

That's the beauty of skepticism. It DOESN'T bind. Christianity, on the other hand, has bound people down through the ages...and continues to bind the minds of its followers.

You are bound by what you believe to be reality. And if you are not, then you believe nothing.

I think reality is pointed to by what we discover (through science) and what we know, a priori, is real.

This is circular logic. Scientist don't claim they know reality. No science does. If it did, there would be no point to it.

Christianity requires me to believe in talking snakes, talking asses, eternal damnation, an angelic afterlife, people raising the dead, corpses leaving their graves and walking around, invisible gods, ghosts, water turning into wine, three people who are really one, etc. (The list goes on and on.) There is no proof this stuff happened and it goes directly against what I know is reality. The only possible way I could believe such stories is if I (somehow) suspended all my knowledge of reality and became a faith zombie. (I know I couldn't do it though.) As Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing in something you just know ain't true."

String theory requires you to believe in a quintessential ether. Black holes require you to believe matter literally disappears. Nothingness requires you to believe there is no spacetime. None of these things are part of our *reality*.

I think the authors of the OT were writing about their tribal God and using Him to advance their causes. (Land grabbing, clerical power, King power, etc) The stories were meant to scare their own people and their enemies.

Since you have studied this stuff extensively, you must be aware NT is like no other written document, particularly concercing the aspect of cultural development. One obvious sore thumb is Monotheism.

Have you read the bible!? There are so many errors and just plain wrong things in the bible - its reliability should never pop up as something to be proud of.

I have, and as I said you are allowed your best shot. You chose Noah.

I got my Masters in Humanities in 1993 - wrote my thesis on Christianity. I have been studying Comparative Religion and mythology ever since. I just can't get enough of it.

My mistake. It would be much evident to you that OT and NT are not like mythologies you have come across.

One huge difference is relevance. Don't you find it odd that a book of mythology would get Israel right? I know you don't.

EdwardG

29th May 2003, 02:03 PM

So either all of you are right, one of you is right, or none of you are right. And of course, as a Christian you will claim to be right.

Avram: He's right and he's right? How can they both be right?

Tevye: You know, you are also right.

triadboy

29th May 2003, 07:17 PM

Noah's Ark:

To begin it should be noted that the Noah story is very similar to the tale of Upnapishtim from the Gilgamesh story:

1. Both were instructed by a god to build an Ark to survive a global deluge that a god was going to make happen.
2. Both were instructed to gather two (male and female) of each species of animal. (Noah was told 2 by the P author and 7 by the J author)
3. Both were righteous men.
4. Both Arks came to rest atop mountains (Noah's Ark on Mt. Arrarat, Utnapishtim's on Mt. Nimush)
5. Both released doves and ravens after the deluge

If you add up the ages of the patriarchs you will find that Noah was born 1056 years after the creation (using Archbishop Ussher's figure of 4004 BC) - 3000BC. When he was 600 years old is the time of the flood or 2400 BC.

You mentioned you didn't think it was a universal flood. Please note the following:

6:7
And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

6:13
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

6:17
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

7:3
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

7:4
For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

7:18
And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

7:19
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

7:20
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

7:21
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

7:22
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

7:23
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Knowing that the bible is written with divine help - you must assume the earth was a big ball of water. When "all the high hills are covered" and the "mountains were covered" - we MUST include Mt Everest. This means the waters were 5 miles high! This is 8 times more water than is on earth!

Thus, here the bible describes a universal flood. I mean, if you are going to kill everyone - you have to kill everyone on earth....universally, right?.

****************
It is common knowledge among biblical scholars (secular and non) that Genesis had several hands writing to it. For instance there are two creation stories. The first was written by the P author, probably around the time of the Babylonian Captivity. Examine 1:1 - 2:3. Notice the strict, formal telling of the story here. (This is probably a priest "borrowing" greatly from the Babylonian creation story) Now examine 2:4 - 2:25. At 2:4 (in the Hebrew) God is called a different name! And the story now is more relaxed and ...story-like. This author (known as J) is not so formal as the P author.
******************
I bring this up because the P author dallies in the flood story too.

How long was the flood?

Gen.7:17
And the flood was forty days upon the earth. (J)

Gen.7:24
And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days. (P)

Gen.8:3
And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the one hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. (P)

How long was the Ark afloat?

Gen.8:4
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Gen.8:5
And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

How long was Noah in the Ark?

The J document has the rain lasting 40 days and 40 nights. But the P document has the rains prevailing 150 days. At Gen 7:11 the rains begin. At Gen 8:13-14 - Noah gets out. **One year later!**

Now we need to discuss the cargo.

Gen.6:19
Of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark.

Gen.7:8, 9, 15
Of clean beast and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowl ... there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God commanded Noah.

Gen.7:2
Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female.

You see the J author believed in animal sacrifice. The P author did not. One can only sacrifice clean animals. That is how the discrepancy between 6:19 and 7:2 occurs. Noah sacrifices animal.

8:20
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

8:21
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour....

That god of yours sure loves Bar-B-Que!

I'm sure 'two of every sort' was no big deal to a nomad who only knew of a few hundred animals. But we now know different. There are over 15,000 species of mammals alone. There are 15,000 species of other land vertebrates and an enormous number of species of other land animals. There are at least a million species of insects. (There are 500 different species of fleas alone!) The ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. It would be impossible to get two of every creature on a vessel of this size. (I'm not even counting the "clean 7's")

Think also of the unique animals on earth: penguins, pandas, polar bears, koalas...how did they get to the ark. How did polar region animals stand the heat of the middle east? How did tropical animals stand the intense cold of Mt Ararat at 17,000 feet? This is not even taking into account a years supply of food for 3 million animals and insects! (Don't forget koala eat eucalyptus almost exclusively.)

Are you one of those that believe dinosaurs were also on the Ark? We forgot to count those.

What about sea creatures? Were there special tanks onboard the Ark?

The Ark was a wooden vessel that had to withstand a deluge where the waters rose to 5 miles in 40 days and 40 nights. Aircraft carriers in todays Navy could not withstand such a flood.

This flood took place in ~2400 BC...and yet we have Egyptian history that does not mention the flood. This history is uninterrupted from the pharoah Menes in 3400 BC to Darius Ochus in 340 BC

Something stinks here! All the people and animals on earth were not killed. There is no evidence of a universal flood.

I believe the Utnapishtim story was know and incorporated into the bible as the Noah Flood story. Here is a portion:

I ordered my family and relatives onto the ship
Along with the beast of the field and the wild animals
....
Six days and Six nights
the flood wind blew and the storm swept the land
....
On Mount Nisir the ship grounded...
....
When the seventh day arrived, I released a dove

As a last fun fact - In the Hebrew the word used for pitch is "kofer". This is the word used in the Babylonian tale...and "kofer" appears nowhere else in the Bible.

Note: The babylonian tale was taken from the Sumarian tale

I hope someone enjoys this

triadboy

29th May 2003, 08:43 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian

I think reality is pointed to by what we discover (through science) and what we know, a priori, is real.

This is circular logic. Scientist don't claim they know reality. No science does. If it did, there would be no point to it.

I never said scientists claim to know reality. I said reality is pointed to by what we discover through science. It's the best indicator we have.

String theory requires you to believe in a quintessential ether. Black holes require you to believe matter literally disappears. Nothingness requires you to believe there is no spacetime. None of these things are part of our *reality*.

The String Hypothesis is not firm - I'll wait for the movie

Black holes - if I recall my black holes correctly - don't have anything to do with matter disappearing. Matter goes into the black holes. but may emerge somewhere else out of a white hole. But, surely you don't deny black holes exist?

Nothingness - I'm not sure where you are going with this one. From Nothingness to Eternity was a great Mahavishnu album.

Since you have studied this stuff extensively, you must be aware NT is like no other written document, particularly concercing the aspect of cultural development. One obvious sore thumb is Monotheism.

Yes the Christian bible has influenced music, art, literature, and architecture - many of them to the better. (I won't bring up Christian rock) :-)

However, you must admit the NT has been the source of much killing and forced allegience. The Jews are despised in much of the world based on the NT. Ancient Indians in South America were slaughtered with the full blessing of the Pope.

I don't know what you mean by Sore Thumb. The first Monotheist was Atenotep (spelling?) He selected the Sun God as the only god to worship. From him there may have been some influence on the Jews.

While in Babylonian Captivity, the Jews (through the Babylonians) were influenced by Zoroastrianism. Their god Ahura Mazda, is very similar to the Judeo/Christian God. And they had a devil also!

My mistake. It would be much evident to you that OT and NT are not like mythologies you have come across.

Stories in the bible are VERY mythological.

- Lots wife turns to look at Sodom and turns into a pillar of salt.
Around the Dead Sea there are pillars of salt standing around. This particular story smacks dead on as a 'just so' story. "Why are there pillars of salt here" "Well let me tell you..."

- Cain and Abel smells like an amazingly old story relating the struggles between nomadic herders and city/farm dwellers. Think about it - eventually people learned to plant; they had to stay with their crops - they had to stay in one place. So they staked their claim on the land and flourished. At the beginning, it would be easy to see how the farmers did not get along with the herders. So here's their story. Abel is the herder; Cain is the farmer/city dweller.

- Lot's two daughters get Lot drunk and have sex with him.

19:37
And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

19:38
And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

The Moabites and the Ammonites were the Jews' bitter enemies. Isn't that a wonderful thing to be able to recreate their linage from an incestual relationship! It would be like us today creating a story like, "..and so Ralph had sex with the gerbil and the gerbil gave birth to gerbil-people we know today as North Korea and France."

- the Tower of Babel is so myth laden, surely even you can see it.
Do you honestly believe this is how we arrived at different languages?! Why was god so afraid?

One huge difference is relevance. Don't you find it odd that a book of mythology would get Israel right? I know you don't.

The bible has two vivid viewpoints - one from the point of view of Judah and one from the point of view from Israel. As you already know, when the Assyrians conquered Israel and assimilated them into their society (the 10 lost tribes), many escaped south into Judah - and with them came THEIR holy texts. These eventually were interwoven into the bible by the 'redactor'. Many of the stories DON'T get Israel right. Several peace-loving good rulers of Israel are seen as evil doers when told by the Judahic authors. There is also controversy over who are the right priests - the ones from the North with their allegiances to Moses or the one from the South with their allegiances to Aaron. (I may have switch those...sorry)

The point is - the bible is a lot of stories. Expertly melded by the redactor.

From the NT perspective - Mark didn't seem to know Israel at all. He consistently had Jesus walking straight from Chicago to Minneapolis - by way of Miami!

CSSMariner

30th May 2003, 03:14 AM

I fall under the "It is all B-S" category. Unfortunately that was not the question.:D

Christian

30th May 2003, 02:52 PM

Im going to need the weekend to respond to the flood part.

1- You have presented a parallel story as to demonstrate fabrication.

2- You have presented the idea that the Biblical account is of a global flood.

From there you launch most of the other assumptions. First, we must resolve the local/global aspect.

Triadboy wrote:
I never said scientists claim to know reality. I said reality is pointed to by what we discover through science. It's the best indicator we have.

No, science gives us testable theories, not reality. You are a skeptic, it is the skeptic position that reality can never be known. We can only have falsifiable evidence of reality.

Black holes - if I recall my black holes correctly - don't have anything to do with matter disappearing.

Yes, they do. Just read about them again or maybe another poster can help.

Matter goes into the black holes. but may emerge somewhere else out of a white hole. But, surely you don't deny black holes exist?

We believe they exist. I believe they do. All evidence points to the fact that they do.

However, you must admit the NT has been the source of much killing and forced allegience. The Jews are despised in much of the world based on the NT. Ancient Indians in South America were slaughtered with the full blessing of the Pope.

All documents can be blamed as the source for evil. There was a trial, not long ago, where kids claimed the lirics of rock music made them do evil things.

NT is the source of evil.

I don't think I will have time to respond to all the other material, unless you have all year.

triadboy

30th May 2003, 05:17 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian
1- You have presented a parallel story as to demonstrate fabrication.

Correct - the reasoning here is they can't BOTH be right.

2- You have presented the idea that the Biblical account is of a global flood.

I believe the bible states this very clearly

Triadboy wrote:
I never said scientists claim to know reality. I said reality is pointed to by what we discover through science. It's the best indicator we have.

No, science gives us testable theories, not reality. You are a skeptic, it is the skeptic position that reality can never be known. We can only have falsifiable evidence of reality.

Again I believe the tested theories of science point to reality. For instance, our understanding of gravity helps us understand reality. Science POINTS to reality. (points)(Did I mention that science POINTS to reality?

Black holes - if I recall my black holes correctly - don't have anything to do with matter disappearing.

Yes, they do. Just read about them again or maybe another poster can help.

I understand that matter 'disappears' from "view". But I don't think anyone knows if the matter 'disappears' from "existence".

However, you must admit the NT has been the source of much killing and forced allegience. The Jews are despised in much of the world based on the NT. Ancient Indians in South America were slaughtered with the full blessing of the Pope.

All documents can be blamed as the source for evil. There was a trial, not long ago, where kids claimed the lirics of rock music made them do evil things.

Yes but the different interpretations derived from NT are still the greatest source slaughter.

triadboy

1st June 2003, 04:58 PM

triadboy

1st June 2003, 04:59 PM

[crickets]

asthmatic camel

2nd June 2003, 12:07 AM

Yet more blather about religion. I'd like to propose an experiment. Let us set up a community of skeptics where absolutely NO reference to religion, superstition, Santa, the Tooth Fairy etc. is allowed. Let these people raise their children in this environment and then see whether any of the offspring independently arrive at the conclusion that a "God" exists.

I appreciate that this would be extremely difficult , if not impossible, to accomplish and that the believers would argue that "God" sent prophets to spread its word, but wouldn't the results be fascinating?

Regards,

asthmatic camel

Christian

2nd June 2003, 07:29 AM

Hopefully I will respond today. Please hang on.

Christian

2nd June 2003, 08:29 AM

Triadboy wrote:
Correct - the reasoning here is they can't BOTH be right.

All that would suffice is to show the archealogical evidence of the Noah Flood. In this regards, here a link that pinpoints that event where it is said it took place:

Noah's Flood (http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/)

I believe the bible states this very clearly

I believe you are incorrect. Here is an article that pretty much argues against your position:

Local or Global? (http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/noah.html)

From there:We have been told in the biblical account that the flood would cover the "earth", that everything in the "earth" would die, and other statements about the "earth", all of which would teach the idea of a world-wide flood - EXCEPT for one thing: Hebrew word "erets", especially in the Book of Genesis.

Erets (#776 in Strong's), the Hebrew word that translated "earth" throughout the flood account and it does not require a world-wide meaning. This word translated "country" (140 times) and "land" (1,476 times!) in the Bible. Many of them are often of limited land areas.

Note: I'm using that link specifically to refute the use of the world *earth* to mean the whole globe and that is all. (it is my experience that threads qet derailed because posters begin to dissect the link and one is expected to defend every point within.)

Again I believe the tested theories of science point to reality. For instance, our understanding of gravity helps us understand reality. Science POINTS to reality. (points)(Did I mention that science POINTS to reality?

But you said you knew reality. Are you changing your position to *points to reality*? They are not the same. This is why I used the term.

I understand that matter 'disappears' from "view". But I don't think anyone knows if the matter 'disappears' from "existence".

Do you know what scientist believe is a black hole? By definition, matter is disappearing in the phenomenon.

Yes but the different interpretations derived from NT are still the greatest source slaughter.

Yes, but please understand that it is a non sequitur. A such massive and influential material will inevitably be used to justify evil, simply because of human nature.

triadboy

3rd June 2003, 06:52 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian
Triadboy wrote:
Correct - the reasoning here is they can't BOTH be right.

All that would suffice is to show the archealogical evidence of the Noah Flood. In this regards, here a link that pinpoints that event where it is said it took place:

Noah's Flood (http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/)

I believe the bible states this very clearly

I believe you are incorrect. Here is an article that pretty much argues against your position:

Local or Global? (http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/noah.html)

First of all, Christian, you are preaching to the choir. I KNOW the flood story stems from a local flood. But the bible makes it very clear the flood was universal - thus it is wrong:

6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

How does he destroy "man whom [he] created" if the flood isn't universal?

6:13 nd God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

He said "all flesh"

7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

"every living substance that I have made" C'mon, Christian - THINK!

7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

"...all the high hills, that were under the WHOLE heaven..." They didn't know it back then, but the heaven goes all the way around.

7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

This really seems to make it appear the Noah and his family were the only living things on earth.

The Noah story NEVER happened. It was Utnapishtim who was the participant of a flood event...a thousand years before Noah was supposed to have lived.

The bible is in error.

triadboy

3rd June 2003, 08:58 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian
All that would suffice is to show the archealogical evidence of the Noah Flood. In this regards, here a link that pinpoints that event where it is said it took place:

Noah's Flood (http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/)

This is not evidence of Noahs Flood. This may be evidence of *A* flood. Noahs flood was said to be worldwide. This is localized. If you read the tale of Gilgamesh - surely you can see the similarities and can determine Noahs story is a derivative.

****I believe the bible states this very clearly

I believe you are incorrect. Here is an article that pretty much argues against your position:

Local or Global? (http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/noah.html)

This article attempts to muster up all the times the word "earth" is used and then claim it merely means 'land' in the Noah story. However, it doesn't fly because of the specifics the Biblical flood story mentions. "All men" were killed. This means Aztecs, Eskimos, Aborigines, Orientals, etc. The flood would need to be greater than a localized flood to affect these people.

This is a common Christian tactic. I've also heard xians 'define' the word 'day' in Genesis as 'age'. Even though the word used means 24 hours everywhere else in the bible.

Christian

5th June 2003, 04:32 PM

Triadboy wrote:
First of all, Christian, you are preaching to the choir. I KNOW the flood story stems from a local flood. But the bible makes it very clear the flood was universal - thus it is wrong:

You know there was this local flood (geographically where the ark was said to be built, good)

Where do you get that *it is very clear* the flood was universal?

The problem here is that you want to suspend all the hermeneutical rules of interpretation in extensive written material.

One of the required courses for law students is legal hermeneutics. It is indispensable to understand what legislators mean when writing codes.

One of the common exercises for law students is to defend their interpretation of the text based on objective criteria. One fundamental way to support (demonstrate) that an interpretation is valid (the correct one) is the use of referential text. Thus, if a student provides other passages where the phrase or word is used which concords with the meaning he is advocating then, he has made the case for his interpretation.

This is exactly how the rebuttal is presented. Showing you ample examples of the word in question where the meaning is different. Not only that, showing you why another interpretation would be the forced and illogical one.

Let me demonstrate. Let’s use the passages you have quoted and change the word earth to land and see what happens.

6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of this land; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Your objection here is the *I have created*. Are you implying that God created these people like He did Adam and Eve? Or does it mean that because He is the originator, he is the creator of all?

6:13 and God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the land is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the land.

I don’t know about you, but when I speak of a set (or a subset) that becomes the reference or universe. This is very common in legal documents. The word *all* is understood as *all within the reference*. It is also very common in the simplest of narratives.

7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the land forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the land.

You see, the interpretation that all things created on earth were created directly by the hand of God is absurd. This would imply that all the trees, mammals, fish, etc. were the first generation created by God. This is nonsense. The logical, common sense interpretation is that all things that are living, in any time in history, are creations of God because He is the originator.

And this is not a stretch at all. This is the way the scriptures speaks about the people, animals, and natural things in general.

7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the land; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Your objection here is *whole*. I find it odd that this set/subset idea would be so foreign to you. Have you ever said “the whole sky is blue”? I have, and I don’t mean all the skies in the world, I clearly mean *my whole sky*

And heaven means sky. Please note also the singular in the word heaven.

7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the land: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

Please note that the text makes perfect sense here and all throughout.

And also note that there isn’t a single place in the story that definitively would direct one to conclude it was a universal flood.

There is a rule in interpreting ancient texts, the simplest and most mundane interpretation will be preferred if there is no direct obvious contradiction. Why would we want to treat the Bible any different from other manuscripts?

Triadboy wrote:
This article attempts to muster up all the times the word "earth" is used and then claim it merely means 'land' in the Noah story. However, it doesn't fly because of the specifics the Biblical flood story mentions. "All men" were killed. This means Aztecs, Eskimos, Aborigines, Orientals, etc. The flood would need to be greater than a localized flood to affect these people.

As I have shown, my interpretation of the text is more than reasonable and plausible. Your preference for the universal interpretation is biased to your point of view (as I understand mine is to mine). As I said, this always ends at the beginning. But, please see that your arguments are not as weighty as you think they would be.

This is a common Christian tactic. I've also heard xians 'define' the word 'day' in Genesis as 'age'. Even though the word used means 24 hours everywhere else in the bible.

It is a common atheist tactic to present only half of the argument. A true objective researcher will see that there is a point to be made from the hermeneutical perspective and would concede that the blow to the story is not as you have presented. Remember, this is what you chose as your best shot.

triadboy

5th June 2003, 05:51 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian
Triadboy wrote:
[b] First of all, Christian, you are preaching to the choir. I KNOW the flood story stems from a local flood. But the bible makes it very clear the flood was universal - thus it is wrong

You know there was this local flood (geographically where the ark was said to be built, good)

The assumption is - the ark was supposedly built between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Yes, there is evidence of local floods there. Was an ark built for a local flood, where God would need two of every creature onboard? No

Where do you get that *it is very clear* the flood was universal?

From the Bible

This is exactly how the rebuttal is presented. Showing you ample examples of the word in question where the meaning is different. Not only that, showing you why another interpretation would be the forced and illogical one.

No matter how you define 'earth', the wording is clear.

7:20
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

*****What does this mean to you?

Your objection here is the *I have created*. Are you implying that God created these people like He did Adam and Eve? Or does it mean that because He is the originator, he is the creator of all?

Maybe you have a different idea about the population of the world at the time of this flood. Do you think there were Egyptians, Aztecs, Eskimos, Aborigines people on earth at that time? Because if there were, they would need to be destroyed too.

I don’t know about you, but when I speak of a set (or a subset) that becomes the reference or universe. This is very common in legal documents. The word *all* is understood as *all within the reference*. It is also very common in the simplest of narratives.

First, don't confuse the bible for a legal document. The word 'all' in this context refers to 'all' of God's living creations. Why are you doing verbal exercises when it is plainly in front of you? A judge would laugh you out of court.

You see, the interpretation that all things created on earth were created directly by the hand of God is absurd. This would imply that all the trees, mammals, fish, etc. were the first generation created by God. This is nonsense. The logical, common sense interpretation is that all things that are living, in any time in history, are creations of God because He is the originator.

So you feel God was just destroying the things he initially made...not the people and animals that came after? (wow)

And this is not a stretch at all. This is the way the scriptures speaks about the people, animals, and natural things in general.

I disagree and I'll bet any Christian reading this thread disagrees.

9:1
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

9:2
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

9:3
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

9:18
And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.

9:19
These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

The writers of Genesis - definitely - intended for Noahs story to mean all life was destroyed. They described the massive flood covering mountains. They described every creature dying:

(Gen.6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.)

I believe you have non-traditional beliefs that are causing a confusion. Please explain Noahs flood to me. Who died? How many animals were saved? etc.

Please note that the text makes perfect sense here and all throughout.

The Bible is one of the most confusing pieces of claptrap ever written. If it was clearly understandable - we wouldn't have so many factions.

And also note that there isn’t a single place in the story that definitively would direct one to conclude it was a universal flood.

You need to read Genesis again. It is VERY clear to atheists and Christians.

There is a rule in interpreting ancient texts, the simplest and most mundane interpretation will be preferred if there is no direct obvious contradiction. Why would we want to treat the Bible any different from other manuscripts?

I agree. The simplest thing to do is read the Bible and understand what it clearly says. Why would Noah have to take two of each creature for a local flood?

This article attempts to muster up all the times the word "earth" is used and then claim it merely means 'land' in the Noah story. However, it doesn't fly because of the specifics the Biblical flood story mentions. "All men" were killed. This means Aztecs, Eskimos, Aborigines, Orientals, etc. The flood would need to be greater than a localized flood to affect these people.

As I have shown, my interpretation of the text is more than reasonable and plausible. Your preference for the universal interpretation is biased to your point of view (as I understand mine is to mine). As I said, this always ends at the beginning. But, please see that your arguments are not as weighty as you think they would be.

Do you think the simplest answer is that Noahs flood never happened? I do.

It is a common atheist tactic to present only half of the argument. A true objective researcher will see that there is a point to be made from the hermeneutical perspective and would concede that the blow to the story is not as you have presented. Remember, this is what you chose as your best shot.

You must be atheist then, because you failed to address the ark, the animals inside and the length of the flood. Please do.

Christian

5th June 2003, 06:39 PM

triadboy wrote;
The assumption is - the ark was supposedly built between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Yes, there is evidence of local floods there. Was an ark built for a local flood, where God would need two of every creature onboard? No

Yes, an ark was built for a local flood. Noah would need two of every kind onboard because they didn't have trucks or planes to transport animals from vast area to another.

If a puzzle was presented to you where the scenario be that the area will be flooded and you need to repopulate it (and you did not have trucks or planes to transport animals from other far away areas. What would you do? Build a boat and put two of each. That solves the problem.

7:20
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

*****What does this mean to you?

This is about seven meters above the mountains in the area.

Maybe you have a different idea about the population of the world at the time of this flood. Do you think there were Egyptians, Aztecs, Eskimos, Aborigines people on earth at that time? Because if there were, they would need to be destroyed too.

What part of set and subset is not clear here.

First, don't confuse the bible for a legal document. The word 'all' in this context refers to 'all' of God's living creations. Why are you doing verbal exercises when it is plainly in front of you? A judge would laugh you out of court.

So far, no judge has. The legal reference was to point out a simple criteria of interpretation in extensive material.

So you feel God was just destroying the things he initially made...not the people and animals that came after? (wow)

This is in response to:
You see, the interpretation that all things created on earth were created directly by the hand of God is absurd. This would imply that all the trees, mammals, fish, etc. were the first generation created by God. This is nonsense. The logical, common sense interpretation is that all things that are living, in any time in history, are creations of God because He is the originator.

Are we having trouble communicating here. Can you read this again please and respond.

I disagree and I'll bet any Christian reading this thread disagrees.

Yes, I know you do. I'm not sure about that second statement.

As posted by triadboy:

9:1
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the land.

9:2
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the land, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the land, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

9:3
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

9:18
And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.

9:19
These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole land overspread.

So far so good.

The writers of Genesis - definitely - intended for Noahs story to mean all life was destroyed. They described the massive flood covering mountains. They described every creature dying:

Yes, locally.

As posted by triadboy:
(Gen.6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the land, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the land shall die.)

I believe you have non-traditional beliefs that are causing a confusion. Please explain Noahs flood to me. Who died? How many animals were saved? etc.

All the inhabitants of that area. Two of each of that area.

The Bible is one of the most confusing pieces of claptrap ever written. If it was clearly understandable - we wouldn't have so many factions.

You see how easy it is for you to go from local to global when I clearly meant local. And the source (me) is telling you to interprete my statement to pertain to the passage in question. Here the comment you are responding to:

Please note that the text makes perfect sense here and all throughout.

When I say *the text* I mean that particular passage. But you interpreted the *the text* to mean the whole Bible. You see, it is easy to confuse local and global.

I agree. The simplest thing to do is read the Bible and understand what it clearly says. Why would Noah have to take two of each creature for a local flood?

I already explained this.

You must be atheist then, because you failed to address the ark, the animals inside and the length of the flood. Please do.

You make it sound like you mentioned those arguments before. You did not.

I have now addressed the ark, the animals, and the flood. Is there anything else about them I need to address?

triadboy

5th June 2003, 07:54 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian
triadboy wrote;
[b]The assumption is - the ark was supposedly built between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Yes, there is evidence of local floods there. Was an ark built for a local flood, where God would need two of every creature onboard? No

Yes, an ark was built for a local flood. Noah would need two of every kind onboard because they didn't have trucks or planes to transport animals from vast area to another.

There are floods all the time - all over the world...why don't we grab two of every creature nowdays?

It appears to me - you are a Christian who also (maybe subconsciously) realizes the ridiculousness of the Noah Story. So you are struggling to make it work. I know of no other Christian who believes the way you do - and I know a lot!

If a puzzle was presented to you where the scenario be that the area will be flooded and you need to repopulate it (and you did not have trucks or planes to transport animals from other far away areas. What would you do? Build a boat and put two of each. That solves the problem.

I would let repopulation happen naturally like it has for millions of years

7:20
Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

*****What does this mean to you?

This is about seven meters above the mountains in the area.

Mt Ararat too? :-)

Maybe you have a different idea about the population of the world at the time of this flood. Do you think there were Egyptians, Aztecs, Eskimos, Aborigines people on earth at that time? Because if there were, they would need to be destroyed too

What part of set and subset is not clear here.

If the waters rose 7 meters above Mt Ararat - wouldn't that be enough to destroy life all over the globe? Because don't forget - if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and the waters rose to ~17,000 feet the deluge created would've killed everybody on the globe. Is this correct with your thinking?

So you feel God was just destroying the things he initially made...not the people and animals that came after? (wow)
This is in response to:

You see, the interpretation that all things created on earth were created directly by the hand of God is absurd. This would imply that all the trees, mammals, fish, etc. were the first generation created by God. This is nonsense. The logical, common sense interpretation is that all things that are living, in any time in history, are creations of God because He is the originator.

Are we having trouble communicating here. Can you read this again please and respond.

Yes we are having trouble communicating. PLEASE explain why God had to kill only a subset of his creation. (The people living in the flood area)

I disagree and I'll bet any Christian reading this thread disagrees.

Yes, I know you do. I'm not sure about that second statement.

LCBOY?...Ruby?... a little help please.

The writers of Genesis - definitely - intended for Noahs story to mean all life was destroyed. They described the massive flood covering mountains. They described every creature dying:

Yes, locally.

More than that if the waters rose 17000 feet

I believe you have non-traditional beliefs that are causing a confusion. Please explain Noahs flood to me. Who died? How many animals were saved? etc.

All the inhabitants of that area. Two of each of that area.

Except of course for the clean animals which were in sevens. Right?

You must be atheist then, because you failed to address the ark, the animals inside and the length of the flood. Please do.

You make it sound like you mentioned those arguments before. You did not.

About 15 postings up I asked about these things.

Why was Noah in the Ark for a year for a local flood?
Why would a local flood deposit him on a mountain 17000 ft high?

Loki

5th June 2003, 08:40 PM

triadboy,

(regarding Christian)
I know of no other Christian who believes the way you do - and I know a lot!
Christian is pretty unique around here! Nice guy and all that, but certainly a fundamentalist in many ways. I still recall (fondly!) the time he offered "snow" as an example of scientific knowledge contained in the bible that was not available to the writers of the bible. (Yes, I know Christian - it was only part of a list of items that you simply copied from a web site and posted without checking all of them - still, it made me laugh!).

Be warned - Christian has an unrelenting tenacity!

(PS. Chrisitan - it sounds like you have finally reached a decision and come down on the side of "local flood". Last I remember, you were keeping your options open about the possibility of it being 'global'. What finally tipped your into the 'local' camp?)

Loki

5th June 2003, 08:47 PM

Finella,

As I said earlier, but not directly to you, our perception of God was different between the OT and the NT.
This could quite easily sidetrack this thread, but I must say I find this a vast over-simplification. In the OT, god killed - both directly (exodus), and indirectly (by ordering the Hebrews to contact a compaign of conquest). Now, you can argue all kinds of reasons for why the OT god did the things he did, but it seems perefctly clear the it's far more than a 'perception' shift. OT God would directly intervene to promote the Hebrew cause (drown the occasional pharaoh, for example), and issue clear and direct instructions to the Hebrews to attack and kill their enemies. He also had a habit of chatting to various minions directly, like Moses.

Jumping forward to the NT, and god's gone. *All* communication is via his spokesman. No killing, no direct chats.

How can this just be 'perception'?

Loki

5th June 2003, 08:51 PM

LCBOY,

I have had opportunity to make positive influences on people's lives here in the US and abroad. This would not have happened if I did not become a Christian.
Actions = will + ability. The Actions you have performed recently are the result of your abilities (which you've always had) being matched to a 'will' to do so. You credit christianity has being the source of that will. Perhaps it's true that for you the only possible source of that 'will' was a conversion - but I doubt it. You deserve the credit, not external 'trigger'.

Finella

6th June 2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Loki
Finella,

This could quite easily sidetrack this thread, but I must say I find this a vast over-simplification. In the OT, god killed - both directly (exodus), and indirectly (by ordering the Hebrews to contact a compaign of conquest). Now, you can argue all kinds of reasons for why the OT god did the things he did, but it seems perefctly clear the it's far more than a 'perception' shift. OT God would directly intervene to promote the Hebrew cause (drown the occasional pharaoh, for example), and issue clear and direct instructions to the Hebrews to attack and kill their enemies. He also had a habit of chatting to various minions directly, like Moses.

Jumping forward to the NT, and god's gone. *All* communication is via his spokesman. No killing, no direct chats.

How can this just be 'perception'?

Hi, Loki, glad to see you back!

It is a bit simplified, I agree. But, remember, according to Christians:

Jesus IS God.

How much more intervention can you get from God? Jesus talked and walked and cured and so on. After the ressurrection, you have the entrance of the Holy Spirit, and thus a new way was recognized to interact with God (although I would maintain that the spirit was there all along, but I don't think that can be scripturally supported, just supported by my own reasoning... ::gasp::) ).

Does that help?

---,---'--{@

triadboy

6th June 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Finella

Hi, Loki, glad to see you back!

It is a bit simplified, I agree. But, remember, according to Christians:

Jesus IS God.

How much more intervention can you get from God? Jesus talked and walked and cured and so on. After the ressurrection, you have the entrance of the Holy Spirit, and thus a new way was recognized to interact with God (although I would maintain that the spirit was there all along, but I don't think that can be scripturally supported, just supported by my own reasoning... ::gasp::) ).

Does that help?

---,---'--{@

So Jesus/God changed from the jealous, vindictive god of the OT to the wondering sage of the NT

triadboy

7th June 2003, 07:32 AM

Christian,

Please reply to the questions from above. I am interested in seeing how you do that

Christian

7th June 2003, 10:28 AM

Triadboy wrote:
There are floods all the time - all over the world...why don't we grab two of every creature nowdays?

Because this flood was unique, it was special, like no other known to geologists. This flood changed the landscape of the area. Please note these links:

http://geology.about.com/library/bl/books/blbookryanpitman.htm

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/lessons/17/gk2/floods.html

From there:

Inform students that some scientists are trying to find evidence of a large flood that occurred about 7,500 years ago and might be the famous flood mentioned in the Bible and other cultures’ flood stories. Show them the Black Sea on a map, and explain that the scientists think this sea may have at one time been a land area but was buried under a giant flood.

It appears to me - you are a Christian who also (maybe subconsciously) realizes the ridiculousness of the Noah Story. So you are struggling to make it work. I know of no other Christian who believes the way you do - and I know a lot!

These statements are irrelevant to this discussion. I hope you can see that.

I would let repopulation happen naturally like it has for millions of years

I see, maybe 3,000 or 4,000 years is enough? Or, let’s leave it to chance and see if repopulation happens.

Mt Ararat too? :-)

Is it possible for you to look at the evidence of that major flood? Evidence keep mounting it was a cataclysmic event in that area.

If the waters rose 7 meters above Mt Ararat - wouldn't that be enough to destroy life all over the globe? Because don't forget - if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and the waters rose to ~17,000 feet the deluge created would've killed everybody on the globe. Is this correct with your thinking?

Yes, but your premise is that it rose 7 meters above Ararat. (which would be the convenient premise for you). I don’t hold that premise because there is nothing in the text that leads me to that conclusion. Remember, the Bible does not specify the limits of the set.

What seem amazing to me, is that this specific flood (when it happened, where it happened, the extent) is being corroborated by scientific findings. Yet, you are advocating the view that it is pure myth. You are blind in this regards because you just can’t accept the idea that the story could be true, even if the mounting evidence it was. (we did not have this evidence 30 years ago)

Yes we are having trouble communicating. PLEASE explain why God had to kill only a subset of his creation. (The people living in the flood area)

Because this is the subset He was leading with. The Bible shows many examples where this is the case. Why would it be so hard for you to accept this?

LCBOY?...Ruby?... a little help please.

I will explain your general strategy. If the flood is a myth and Christians accept it is a myth, why would the resurrection of Christ not also be a myth? Why not accept that it is a fabrication as well, a symbolism. Really, someone coming back from the dead and rising to heaven is not less fantastic than a flood with ark and animals in them, right?

More than that if the waters rose 17000 feet

Wrong premise.

Except of course for the clean animals which were in sevens. Right?

Point?

Why was Noah in the Ark for a year for a local flood?
Why would a local flood deposit him on a mountain 17000 ft high?

Because it was a cataclysmic event that encompassed a vast area. I don’t know exactly how high mount Ararat, but if that is the border (like the border if a swimming pool, and this is exactly why the flood in that ear behaved this way), it is logical that the ark was place on the border mountain.

Loki wrote:
Christian is pretty unique around here! Nice guy and all that, but certainly a fundamentalist in many ways. I still recall (fondly!) the time he offered "snow" as an example of scientific knowledge contained in the bible that was not available to the writers of the bible. (Yes, I know Christian - it was only part of a list of items that you simply copied from a web site and posted without checking all of them - still, it made me laugh!).

Loki, I still remember (not very fondly) when you said incest with daughters was not immoral (yes, I know, it was only a mental exercise- still, it made me [should I dare say] not laugh).

Be warned - Christian has an unrelenting tenacity!

Thank you.

(PS. Chrisitan - it sounds like you have finally reached a decision and come down on the side of "local flood". Last I remember, you were keeping your options open about the possibility of it being 'global'. What finally tipped your into the 'local' camp?)

The evidence keeps mounting toward that localized flood.

Triadboy wrote:
So Jesus/God changed from the jealous, vindictive god of the OT to the wondering sage of the NT

I’m not wrong in my analysis. The argument is “if OT is a myth, why would NT not be myth.

triadboy

7th June 2003, 11:35 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian
Triadboy wrote:
[b]There are floods all the time - all over the world...why don't we grab two of every creature nowdays?

Because this flood was unique, it was special, like no other known to geologists. This flood changed the landscape of the area. Please note these links:

I believe the flood story was a localized event also. Geologists have not identified any special flood that can be classified "The Flood". There is evidence of floods all over that area. My point is the bible clearly says the flood was universal. Everything was killed except Noah and the other 7 people.

However if the Sumarian story make reference to a big localized flood and the Noah story is basically a copy of it. Why are you so insistent that the Noah story be taken as fact?

I would let repopulation happen naturally like it has for millions of years

I see, maybe 3,000 or 4,000 years is enough? Or, let’s leave it to chance and see if repopulation happens.

I don't understand this: why wouldn't animals on the edge of the destruction simply repopulate the area once it became liveable?

If the waters rose 7 meters above Mt Ararat - wouldn't that be enough to destroy life all over the globe? Because don't forget - if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and the waters rose to ~17,000 feet the deluge created would've killed everybody on the globe. Is this correct with your thinking?

Yes, but your premise is that it rose 7 meters above Ararat. (which would be the convenient premise for you). I don’t hold that premise because there is nothing in the text that leads me to that conclusion. Remember, the Bible does not specify the limits of the set.

Isn't that the premise in the bible? All the mountains were covered (7 meters above) ...the floods subsided and the ark came to rest on Ararat....Isn't this what Genesis says?

What seem amazing to me, is that this specific flood (when it happened, where it happened, the extent) is being corroborated by scientific findings. Yet, you are advocating the view that it is pure myth. You are blind in this regards because you just can’t accept the idea that the story could be true, even if the mounting evidence it was. (we did not have this evidence 30 years ago)

As mentioned - there is much evidence of local floods. No reputable geologist will come out with the statement that the biblical flood has been found. It would be like an adventurer saying he had found Noahs Ark.....oh wait....that's been done. :-)

Yes we are having trouble communicating. PLEASE explain why God had to kill only a subset of his creation. (The people living in the flood area)

Because this is the subset He was leading with. The Bible shows many examples where this is the case. Why would it be so hard for you to accept this?

"Because this is the subset He was leading with"

I must admit I'm confused by what you are saying. Please explain what you believed happened. I'm hearing that God was in charge of a subset of humanity that He decided to destroy in a local flood. This means the other people on earth escaped unharmed.

Please give an example that the bible shows for this subset case.

Except of course for the clean animals which were in sevens. Right?

Point?

You DO believe that clean animals were taken aboard in 7s right?

Why was Noah in the Ark for a year for a local flood?
Why would a local flood deposit him on a mountain 17000 ft high?

Because it was a cataclysmic event that encompassed a vast area. I don’t know exactly how high mount Ararat, but if that is the border (like the border if a swimming pool, and this is exactly why the flood in that ear behaved this way), it is logical that the ark was place on the border mountain.

Your understanding of hydro-dynamics and mine differ.

Mountain ranges are not like swimming pools. There are gaps for water to spew into and fill up the valleys on the other side.

If the water rose 7 meters above Mt. Ararat as the bible says. Wouldn't the waters be at 17,000 feet all over the world?

Loki

7th June 2003, 05:46 PM

Christian,

An eye for an eye?
I still remember (not very fondly) when you said incest with daughters was not immoral ...
Let me upset you again - I still say it's not immoral! Just unacceptable in 99.9% of cases because of the near impossibility of unentangling the 'power/responsibility' issues. But really, freed from those issues, sex between a genetic father and daughter is not immoral! (gasp - I said it again!!!). Sex between a guardian and a dependant is the issue.

I now return you to your flood exposition with triadboy....

triadboy

8th June 2003, 06:47 AM

[b]Triadboy wrote:
There are floods all the time - all over the world...why don't we grab two of every creature nowdays?

Christian wrote:
Because this flood was unique, it was special, like no other known to geologists. This flood changed the landscape of the area. [\b]

Unfortunately there is no evidence for the uniqueness of this flood.

Another question:

The majority of Christians believe this was a global flood and that God created rainbows to signify his promise he would never cause a global flood again. (Apparently there wasn't light refraction before the flood)

If this was a local flood (as you say), is God's rainbow a lie? There are (and have been) floods that kill thousands of people all the time. After the flood the survivors look to the heavens only to see God's mocking rainbow promising it will never happen again. (ooo he's so evil!) Why is he such a trickster god? The rainbow must signify a promise against a global flood.

Finella

8th June 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

So Jesus/God changed from the jealous, vindictive god of the OT to the wondering sage of the NT

That's where the human perception part comes in. And I wouldn't limit God in the NT to a "wondering sage." Sage implies a wise person, and I believe Jesus was far more than that, since he was God.

Christian

8th June 2003, 03:43 PM

Triadboy wrote:
I believe the flood story was a localized event also. Geologists have not identified any special flood that can be classified "The Flood". There is evidence of floods all over that area. My point is the bible clearly says the flood was universal. Everything was killed except Noah and the other 7 people.

You simply refuse to acknowledge current evident of a major flood in that area. (Hey, I’ve even seen TV show on this) Here a sample:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005O4WE/103-7895449-1144629?vi=glance

No, the Bible does not clearly say universal.

However if the Sumarian story make reference to a big localized flood and the Noah story is basically a copy of it. Why are you so insistent that the Noah story be taken as fact?

Because I believe the Bible to be historical in this story. There is nothing in the story that would lead my to conclude it was meant as symbolism. So, I have two choice believe it and search for corroborating evidence of the story or not believe it and conclude the Bible is clearly lying to me about it. You know exactly where that conclusion leads to. If the Bible is flat out lying to me about this story, why would it not lie about the resurrection story?

I don't understand this: why wouldn't animals on the edge of the destruction simply repopulate the area once it became liveable?

Because the are is too big. Why is this so hard for you to see? The reasoning is sound. If I’m going to wipe out the entire animal population of a very large area, it will be impossible under current technology to repopulate that vast area.

Isn't that the premise in the bible? All the mountains were covered (7 meters above) ...the floods subsided and the ark came to rest on Ararat....Isn't this what Genesis says?

No, it clearly does not say this. Ararat is not part of the set of mountains the Bible talks about. It is amazing to me that you can be so thorough to your biased point of view and completely miss obvious things in the text.

Genesis 8 NIV
3 The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, 4 and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 5 The waters continued to recede until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible.

Wasn’t it odd for you this part of the passage. If the whole earth is covered, why would the ark rest on Ararat on the seventh month and then the text explain that on that on the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible? That just doesn’t make any sense. Unless of course, Ararat is not part of the set, and the mountains referred to earlier where these next ones which became visible after the tenth month.

As mentioned - there is much evidence of local floods. No reputable geologist will come out with the statement that the biblical flood has been found. It would be like an adventurer saying he had found Noahs Ark.....oh wait....that's been done. :-)

Well, a few years ago, most archeologist believed the Kingdom of Solomon did not exist or was exaggerated to the max. Not anymore, current evidence point to a Kingdom of Solomon.

Same, with the Noah flood, as time passes more and more evidence is found that corroborates the story. You should acknowledge this.

"Because this is the subset He was leading with"

I must admit I'm confused by what you are saying. Please explain what you believed happened. I'm hearing that God was in charge of a subset of humanity that He decided to destroy in a local flood. This means the other people on earth escaped unharmed.

I’m sorry, when I write fast in English, I sometimes become a little dyslexic. The word is *dealing* . I hope that clears up the comment.

Please give an example that the bible shows for this subset case.

Sure.

2 Chronicles 36 (NIV)
23 "This is what Cyrus king of Persia says:
" 'The LORD , the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you-may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.' "

Jeremiah 34 (KJV)
1 The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and all his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth of his dominion, and all the people, fought against Jerusalem, and against all the cities thereof, saying,

Luke 2 (KJV)
1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

Triadboy wrote:
You DO believe that clean animals were taken aboard in 7s right?

Yes.

Your understanding of hydro-dynamics and mine differ.

Mountain ranges are not like swimming pools. There are gaps for water to spew into and fill up the valleys on the other side.

If the water rose 7 meters above Mt. Ararat as the bible says. Wouldn't the waters be at 17,000 feet all over the world?

Again, the premise is wrong. Ararat was not part of the mountains covered. I don’t need a great understanding of hydrodynamics to see that flooded areas become big swimming pools where boats can navigate. Some parts in Central America where flooded by Hurricane Mitch not long ago and it took months for the water to recede in certain areas. And that was from a relatively small hurricane.

Loki wrote:
An eye for an eye?
I’m sorry. Can’t get rid of those nasty habits.

Let me upset you again - I still say it's not immoral! Just unacceptable in 99.9% of cases because of the near impossibility of unentangling the 'power/responsibility' issues. But really, freed from those issues, sex between a genetic father and daughter is not immoral! (gasp - I said it again!!!). Sex between a guardian and a dependant is the issue.
I let you be with those awful moral contradictions.
Triadboy wrote:
Unfortunately there is no evidence for the uniqueness of this flood.
I disagree.
The majority of Christians believe this was a global flood and that God created rainbows to signify his promise he would never cause a global flood again. (Apparently there wasn't light refraction before the flood)
Are you contradicting yourself? I thought you say the majority of Christians not believe the flood story ever happened.
Maybe what you mean to say is that most fundamental Christians believe the flood was global. I believe the evidence so far points to local. This is my personal opinion. And it leaves intact the idea that the story is true.
About the rainbow, why would you conclude that this was the first rainbow ever to appear? This is what astounds me, nowhere in the text is there even a hint of the idea this is the first rainbow, and an objective researcher would clearly understand that God is taking a natural phenomenon to use as a symbol (an anchor). So for there on, every time they see the rainbow, they will associate it with Gods promise (pact) to them.
Here that portion:
Genesis 9 (NIV)
11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth."
12 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."
17 So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth."

Please note the text does not say *I will set a rainbow in the clouds[/B], and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.*
No, it clearly says God is the creator of the rainbow and He will use it as the sign. Before this, rainbows meant nothing.
If this was a local flood (as you say), is God's rainbow a lie? There are (and have been) floods that kill thousands of people all the time. After the flood the survivors look to the heavens only to see God's mocking rainbow promising it will never happen again. (ooo he's so evil!) Why is he such a trickster god? The rainbow must signify a promise against a global flood.

Again, God is making this promise to Noah and his descendents and to that area. This cataclysmic event did not ever happen again in that area.

triadboy

8th June 2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Finella
That's where the human perception part comes in. And I wouldn't limit God in the NT to a "wondering sage." Sage implies a wise person, and I believe Jesus was far more than that, since he was God.

You can use the bible to debate whether Jesus WAS god or not. Don't forget, around 300 AD, the debate was still going strong whether Jesus was God or whether he was a man. The God side won, and now you just take it for granted. The only verses in the bible which seem to imply Jesus was god are taken from John - which is so non-synoptic and wacky it almost didn't make it into the bible. And Paul (who waffles a little) - but this falls directly in line with the dying-god mythology that Paul was pushing.

Matt 16:17
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Matt 18:14
Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Jn.8:40
"But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God."

Jn.14:28
"My Father is greater than I."

Acts 17:31
"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

1 Cor.11:3
"The head of Christ is God."

Col.3:1
"Christ sitteth on the right hand of God."

1 Tim.2:5
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

triadboy

8th June 2003, 04:58 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian
Triadboy wrote:
I believe the flood story was a localized event also. Geologists have not identified any special flood that can be classified "The Flood". There is evidence of floods all over that area. My point is the bible clearly says the flood was universal. Everything was killed except Noah and the other 7 people.

You simply refuse to acknowledge current evident of a major flood in that area. (Hey, I’ve even seen TV show on this)

I can always acknowledge a flood. But acknowledging the Noah flood story would be acknowledging a fairy tale. To me it is obviously a copy of the Sumarian tale.

What do you think of the Sumarian tale. The Gilgamesh story is possibly the oldest written story known to man.

I don't understand this: why wouldn't animals on the edge of the destruction simply repopulate the area once it became liveable?

Because the are is too big. Why is this so hard for you to see? The reasoning is sound. If I’m going to wipe out the entire animal population of a very large area, it will be impossible under current technology to repopulate that vast area.

How big an area are you talking about?

Wasn’t it odd for you this part of the passage. If the whole earth is covered, why would the ark rest on Ararat on the seventh month and then the text explain that on that on the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible? That just doesn’t make any sense. Unless of course, Ararat is not part of the set, and the mountains referred to earlier where these next ones which became visible after the tenth month.

Or as I mentioned earlier the text is actually two authors intertwined. (J and P)

Same, with the Noah flood, as time passes more and more evidence is found that corroborates the story. You should acknowledge this.

You will get your greatest debate from Christians. I was hoping Finella or LCBOY would join in, but I guess Christians stick together even when they disbelieve each other.

I don’t need a great understanding of hydrodynamics to see that flooded areas become big swimming pools where boats can navigate.

It must be a shallow flood then or else the waters would escape into the surrounding areas.

So for there on, every time they see the rainbow, they will associate it with Gods promise (pact) to them.

So the rainbow doesn't mean any kind of promise to other people who weren't affected by the flood? (It wouldn't make sense to them)

Now to start a second talk: Explain the Tower of Babel

Christian

8th June 2003, 05:11 PM

Triadboy wrote:
You will get your greatest debate from Christians. I was hoping Finella or LCBOY would join in, but I guess Christians stick together even when they disbelieve each other.

It is good that you mentioned them because I engaged you more for them than for you and me.

I wanted to show that the Bible can hold its own. I told you to choose your best and you did. I'm sure you have not been swayed one bit, but I think it must have been interesting for them. I hoping it was.

As I said at the beginning, in these types of debates, we always end up in the same place, right at the starting point. This is why I seldom do them anymore.

I think we are at the end of this one. Thanks for the time, I know I'm not the easiest poster to deal with. (not by a long shot)

Now to start a second talk: Explain the Tower of Babel

Thanks, I'll take a rain check on the invitation. It was fund debating with you triadboy.

Finella

8th June 2003, 06:12 PM

You will get your greatest debate from Christians. I was hoping Finella or LCBOY would join in, but I guess Christians stick together even when they disbelieve each other.

The debate was somewhat interesting for me, yes, but I don't have any hard and fast opinions on the whole flood story. As I said before, I'm not concerned with the details. I don't pick apart the Bible verse-by-verse. Such discussions don't hold my interest, really.

I was curious about Christian's defense of a localized flood theory, which was new to me as well. I honestly can't tell you what I exactly believe is the true root of this story; but I do know something happened then. What meaning we get out of it today will say very much about our present opinion of God, just as the meaning people got out of it then (and wrote about in the Bible) will say very much about those people's view of God.

---,---'--{@

triadboy

8th June 2003, 08:19 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella
I was curious about Christian's defense of a localized flood theory, which was new to me as well. I honestly can't tell you what I exactly believe is the true root of this story; but I do know something happened then. What meaning we get out of it today will say very much about our present opinion of God, just as the meaning people got out of it then (and wrote about in the Bible) will say very much about those people's view of God.

I believe the bible contains certain well-known stories that were circulating at the time the bible was compiled by the redactor. The first creation story is from Babylonian origins. Cain and Abel - very old - possibly Sumarian. The Tower of Babel - who knows (there is an unfinished Ziggerat in Iran that is very old - maybe this was a 'just so' story to explain it.) Noah and the Flood - from the Sumarian/Babylonian influence. It would be quite advantagious to recast the Sumarian story as an Israelite story and wind up with only 8 people on the earth - all Israelites! This would show that ALL people came from Israels beginnings, thus the story would supply automatic allegiance.

I disagreed with his interpretation of mountains as a swimming pool that would keep water enclosed. Water seeks the path of least resistance and would move into the lower lying regions on the other side of lower hills. The water would have to fill whatever was on the other side of THAT hill before it could could start rising up the hills in the initial area. If we are talking about a small flood in a valley - well, that is one thing. But we are talking about a catastrophic (in his mind - local) flood. The area that must be covered is not insignificant. Otherwise why schlep animals around with you. Additionally, I never got an answer as to why the ark was afloat for an entire year for a local flood. (And during that year, no mountaintops were seen.)

I felt Christian was not aware of the dual authorship of Genesis and the flood story, so he had to really struggle to make sense of the sequence of events in the flood story.

Other than that - he gave it his best. But I wasn't convinced by any of his answers.

LCBOY

8th June 2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

You will get your greatest debate from Christians. I was hoping Finella or LCBOY would join in, but I guess Christians stick together even when they disbelieve each other.

triadboy,

I am sorry, I have been away most of the weekend. This thread is getting a little hard to follow. Maybe if you can list three or four "problems" you have concerning the flood. You make a lot of statements like "This (enter any Genesis narrative) is obviously copied from the (enter another ancient culture here)". Can you cite your sources. I would like to read them. It's difficult to respond without sources being cited.

Ruby

9th June 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

LCBOY?...Ruby?... a little help please.

I don't know if I can be much help. I can say that I have always been taught that the flood covered the entire earth. I have never been taught, or even heard, that the flood was local.

Loki

9th June 2003, 03:15 PM

Christian,

I wanted to show that the Bible can hold its own. I told you to choose your best and you did. I'm sure you have not been swayed one bit, but I think it must have been interesting for them.
Ah, but it can 'hold it's own' only if you choose an interpretation that is contrary to nearly 2,000 years of christian teaching! You'd say "I am reinterpreting the bible with the aid of modern knowledge, to extract the true information". I'd say "you've been forced, because of scientific knowledge, to admit that billions of christians have misunderstood the flood story".

If the whole earth is covered, why would the ark rest on Ararat on the seventh month and then the text explain that on that on the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible? That just doesn’t make any sense.
You said it!

Unless of course, Ararat is not part of the set, and the mountains referred to earlier where these next ones which became visible after the tenth month.
So you admit here that the flood story *must* be local, or the story "just doesn't make any sense". The global flood is dead. Noah is the story of a localised event.

You simply refuse to acknowledge current evident of a major flood in that area.
I don't think anyone here has argued that there has never be a flood somewhere in the middle east?

Same, with the Noah flood, as time passes more and more evidence is found that corroborates the story.
What evidence are you referring to, beyond "floods have occurred in the past, somewhere in the middle east"?

(from triadboy) : How big an area are you talking about?
And here's the nub of Christian's position. Now that he's abandoned a global position, just how "big" was this 'land' (rather than 'earth') that was flooded. Perhaps just the 10 acres of land that Noah called home? Who knows! 10 acres, 100 acres, 10,000 acres - just how big was this event?

So a quick poll shows :

Christian (paraphrased) : "Noah was a local event, otherwise the story just doesn't make any sense"

Ruby : "I can say that I have always been taught that the flood covered the entire earth. I have never been taught, or even heard, that the flood was local."

LCBOY : "Maybe if you can list three or four "problems" you have concerning the flood." (Implication - the flood story is correct, and global?)

Finella : "I was curious about Christian's defense of a localized flood theory, which was new to me as well. I honestly can't tell you what I exactly believe is the true root of this story; but I do know something happened then."

It seems pretty clear to me, Christian :

1. A story is believed to be true by billions of people over thousands of years.
2. Modern knowledge casts serious doubt on the 'literal truth' of the story.
3. You are committed to a position of 'literal truth' for the entire bible.
4. Therefore, you *must* reinterpret the story. And you have.

So christians have three choices for approaching the Noah tale :

A. It's not a literal tale. It's a story with a clear message about god and his relationship with man. It's probably based upon some sort of real event (the finella position?)
B. It's literal truth, and was global. Doesn't make much sense? Hey, it was god - he can do anything he damn likes to the planet! (the LCBOY position?)
C. It's literal truth, but you have to be careful to correctly interpret the language. (the Christian position).

triadboy

9th June 2003, 05:22 PM

Apparently Christian isn't the only one who thinks this way. There appears to be a movement for the more rational localized flood idea. (Disregarding all the ridiculous animal/ark business)

I've always hoped Xians would begin to realize the bible stories for what they are - poppycock. Perhaps Christian is on the leading edge of a burst of religious rationalism that will ultimately do away with religion entirely and lead this world to a zenith of everlasting peace.

...Nah.

Finella

9th June 2003, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Loki

A. It's not a literal tale. It's a story with a clear message about god and his relationship with man. It's probably based upon some sort of real event (the finella position?)

Loki, my dear friend. You have finally reiterated my position in this thread accurately. Thank you. ::whew::

triadboy

9th June 2003, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Finella
Loki, my dear friend. You have finally reiterated my position in this thread accurately. Thank you. ::whew::

Finella,

If this story is a retelling of the Suamrian tale, then it has nothing to do with Yahweh. Do you agree?

Christian

10th June 2003, 09:40 AM

Loki:

I can't resist the temptation. You bad, bad, man. :D

Loki wrote:
Ah, but it can 'hold it's own' only if you choose an interpretation that is contrary to nearly 2,000 years of christian teaching! You'd say "I am reinterpreting the bible with the aid of modern knowledge, to extract the true information". I'd say "you've been forced, because of scientific knowledge, to admit that billions of christians have misunderstood the flood story".

Wait a minute. The evidence so far (to me) point to a local flood and the evidence keeps mounting. The only reinterpretation I have made is based on a *single word*. A mistranslation (this is also my opinion) of that word gave the global interpretation. From there on, all seems pretty much straight forward.

So you admit here that the flood story *must* be local, or the story "just doesn't make any sense". The global flood is dead. Noah is the story of a localised event.

Yes, this is my view. My opinion thus far.

I don't think anyone here has argued that there has never be a flood somewhere in the middle east?

I’m talking about a major flood.

What evidence are you referring to, beyond "floods have occurred in the past, somewhere in the middle east"?

Just follow the links I provided.

And here's the nub of Christian's position. Now that he's abandoned a global position, just how "big" was this 'land' (rather than 'earth') that was flooded. Perhaps just the 10 acres of land that Noah called home? Who knows! 10 acres, 100 acres, 10,000 acres - just how big was this event?

Well, according to new findings (check the links) there was no black sea before this flood. So, you do the math.

It seems pretty clear to me, Christian :

1. A story is believed to be true by billions of people over thousands of years.
2. Modern knowledge casts serious doubt on the 'literal truth' of the story.
3. You are committed to a position of 'literal truth' for the entire bible.
4. Therefore, you *must* reinterpret the story. And you have.

No, no, no. This is exactly like the Earth being the center of the universe thing. It is my opinion that our translation of a *single word* was wrong. With the correct translation (and note that it is not a capricious change to the translation, I spent enough time to adequately explain why the translation should be changed.)

It seems pretty clear to me, Loki:

1. A story is believed to be true by billions of people over thousands of years based on a mistranslation of a single word.
2. Modern knowledge supports the new translation of the word.
3. I am committed to a position of 'literal truth' for the entire bible.
4. Therefore, I *must* change the translation of that word (which is justified by the rules of hermeneutics and not capricious). And I have.

You seem to dismiss the entire argument, but you fail to see that the Bible, to this day, is able to stay relevant and stands the most arduous scrutiny.

Why would I be so lucky as to have arguments at my disposal that make the story at least plausible. As I’ve said, science is the Bible best ally because as time goes on, more corroboration is found of historical events. Please note, that it was because of the Noah Story that most archeologists decide to corroborate a major flood there. The consensus now (even with non-believers) is that there was a major flood.

So christians have three choices for approaching the Noah tale :

A. It's not a literal tale. It's a story with a clear message about god and his relationship with man. It's probably based upon some sort of real event (the finella position?)
B. It's literal truth, and was global. Doesn't make much sense? Hey, it was god - he can do anything he damn likes to the planet! (the LCBOY position?)
C. It's literal truth, but you have to be careful to correctly interpret the language. (the Christian position).

When you say the language, you make it sound like a major rework of the translation. It’s a single word.

But, that is correct.

Triadboy wrote:
Apparently Christian isn't the only one who thinks this way. There appears to be a movement for the more rational localized flood idea. (Disregarding all the ridiculous animal/ark business)

This is because, to me, the implications of Bible lies are huge. And, regardless of what you think, I’m interested in the truth. I use my critical thinking skills to that effect. And the Bible (I believe) teaches us that we must seek the truth. It also make a bold promise, that it will not fail us. So far, it has not.

I've always hoped Xians would begin to realize the bible
stories for what they are - poppycock.

You should ask why, if this is so evident and simple, the Bible continues to be relevant and the leading force in human religions. This is not an appeal to popularity, it is evidence that there must be something more to the phenomenon.

Listen, no other book has been scrutinized (not even close), criticized and discredited as the Bible. And here, still I’m able to defend it rationally. It’s not like I’m defending the god of thunder Thor.

Loki

10th June 2003, 03:21 PM

Christian,

This is exactly like the Earth being the center of the universe thing.
Totally agree. A 10th century christian monk might argue for a Flat Earth, and even quote scripture in support of that position. They were still wrong.

It is my opinion that our translation of a *single word* was wrong.
And yet, the 'nature' of the story is changed somewhat through the retranslation of that *single word*, don't you think?

Yes, this is my view. My opinion thus far.
And that's the key point here - you'll change your opinion as necessary to preserve you 'bible inerrancy' position. You're 'data fitting'.

You seem to dismiss the entire argument, but you fail to see that the Bible, to this day, is able to stay relevant and stands the most arduous scrutiny.
Actually, I disagree with this! I find the 'relevence' of the bible inn modern society to be questionable. You condemn homosexuality based on nothing more than the bible - I find that amazing. You believe in hitting your children with a "rod" based upon scripture - I find that appalling. It seems to me that many christians are forced to move away from an 'inerrancy' stance simply because large portions of the bible, taken literally, are *not* relevant. So they move to a view of the bible as a 'general guide' that requires them to read and try to find the relevence to their own lives and experiences. Much the same process as humanism teaches!!

Finella

10th June 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

Finella,

If this story is a retelling of the Suamrian tale, then it has nothing to do with Yahweh. Do you agree?

Suamrian tale? :)

Oh, Sumerian tale. I'm afraid that I'm unfamilar with the whole Sumerian tale. If it blames its god for the flood, and the main gist of the story is similar, then I do not at all agree that it has nothing to do with Yahweh. The Sumerian god could be Yahweh, known by a different name.

In fact, when such common themes appear in more than one culture, I find it validates the Truth (in the life lesson, moral, deep common human connection sense). Even if it "borrows" the story from another culture (as you assert here) I still find it speaks to the meaning the culture found in the story -- and yes, this can include political agendas, but that isn't the whole of it necessarily. Thus, to dismiss all of the Bible's stories as "poppycock" is to do away with a vast amount of human learning and history. Even a pure humanist would find some value in studying and learning from these texts. After all, you have obviously devoted quite a lot of your time to this very thing!

BTW, Madeleine L'Engle also wrote a fiction work based on the flood story called Many waters. I don't know if you've had a chance to lay your hands on any of her books yet; I have to confess that I'm in the middle of a summer session at grad school and haven't been able to read any Campbell yet. But I still promise to read it.

triadboy

10th June 2003, 05:21 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella
I'm afraid that I'm unfamilar with the whole Sumerian tale. If it blames its god for the flood, and the main gist of the story is similar, then I do not at all agree that it has nothing to do with Yahweh. The Sumerian god could be Yahweh, known by a different name.

Here is a portion from an earlier post. What happened was - the gods wanted to destroy mankind, but one god who was friendly with mankind warned Utnapishtim to build a vessel to ride out the flood:

I ordered my family and relatives onto the ship
Along with the beast of the field and the wild animals
....
Six days and Six nights
the flood wind blew and the storm swept the land
....
On Mount Nisir the ship grounded...
....
When the seventh day arrived, I released a dove

In fact, when such common themes appear in more than one culture, I find it validates the Truth

So something like UFOs are validated as truth because sightings happen all the time in all parts of the world? Flood stories occur in virtually all societies that are near the water. This doesn't mean the floods are connected.

Even if it "borrows" the story from another culture (as you assert here) I still find it speaks to the meaning the culture found in the story

In this case, the flood story is an ancient Sumarian story recalling, in mythic terms, a massive local flood. This story, as part of the Epic of Gilgamesh, is one of the oldest written stories known to man. It is a homage to this societies stuggles with nature.

So the Israelites obscond the story - recast the hero as an Israelite - cast their god, Yahweh, as the angry god - and make it a global flood - they make it their own - even though they didn't live it. What does that say about the Israelite culture? Nothing! It's a stolen tale inserted into the Israelites' book of cherished stories.

If you believe it to be a global story you are wrong immediately. The logistics of the Ark with the animals, the impossibility of the flood covering all mountains in the world, the idea that 8 people repopulated the entire world - from somewhere around 2300 - is all to ridiculous for any sane person to buy into.

If you believe it was a local flood - which it originally was - it still means nothing culturally because it wasn't the Jewish society that lived it! The Jews were not a people when the original flood. happened.

Thus, to dismiss all of the Bible's stories as "poppycock" is to do away with a vast amount of human learning and history.

Remember - this 'history' is a wildly biased account of the Jewish people. It is told both from the Israel point of view (the northern 10 tribes) AND the Judah point of view (the southern 2 tribes) (Which adds to its confusion) ...and then refined and 'improved' down through the years by conniving priests and slippery scribes.

I challenge you to supply an OT story that is not poppycock. There are a couple, but I don't think you will spot them.

crocodile deathroll

10th June 2003, 10:08 PM

Funny it just said when I entered my vote:

You did not select an option to vote for. Please press back to return to the poll and choose an option before voting.

Shucks! I have voted for none of those options

Christian

11th June 2003, 04:50 PM

Loki wrote:
Totally agree. A 10th century christian monk might argue for a Flat Earth, and even quote scripture in support of that position. They were still wrong.

[sarcasm on] I see, the Bible writers clearly state the earth is flat [sarcasm off]

And yet, the 'nature' of the story is changed somewhat through the retranslation of that *single word*, don't you think?

Not at all, it is a story that will be used by NT in its central message. Remarkable, don’t you think?

And that's the key point here - you'll change your opinion as necessary to preserve you 'bible inerrancy' position. You're 'data fitting'.

The attitude is as in any piece of knowledge. The “this is what I know so far” attitude is found in all sciences as well. And, why the double standard, when some pieces don’t fit or there are holes in scientific theory, it is not thrown out, it is adjusted or refined.

Thus far, I have not found any fatal flaw that would lead me to believe the Noah story is a fabrication.

Actually, I disagree with this! I find the 'relevence' of the bible inn modern society to be questionable.

Hey, if you can’t find any relevance from it in your life, that is fine. What you can’t do (unless you want to ignore reality completely) is ignore the Bible is the source of the most relevant force today.

Actually, I disagree with this! I find the 'relevence' of the bible inn modern society to be questionable.

Excuse me, but I don’t condemn homosexuality.

You believe in hitting your children with a "rod" based upon scripture - I find that appalling.

Your opinion on my personal life is completely irrelevant.

It seems to me that many christians are forced to move away from an 'inerrancy' stance simply because large portions of the bible, taken literally, are *not* relevant.

No, I think that people move away from inerrancy because they don’t feel it is an important component in their Christian life. Ask any Christian if the Noah story is relevant to their life, and you will get a resounding yes.

So they move to a view of the bible as a 'general guide' that requires them to read and try to find the relevence to their own lives and experiences. Much the same process as humanism teaches!!

You are contradicting yourself, I hope you can see that. You are saying people today find the Bible relevant. The difference with humanism is that there is no one source of the fundamental tenet.

triadboy

11th June 2003, 06:47 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Christian
[sarcasm on] I see, the Bible writers clearly state the earth is flat [sarcasm off]

Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in

Ezekiel 7:2
Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.

Matthew 4:8
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Luke 4:5
And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Revelation 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Revelation 7:1
And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Most people at that time thought the earth was flat; that there was a clear dome over the earth upon which the stars, sun, and moon moved (firmament); that above the firmament were waters being kept back (rain was merely open holes in the firmament allowing the waters from above to sprinkle through); the moon was a light (if there was the concept of roundness in the heavenly bodies - then surely someone would have figured out the relationship between the sun and the moon.); and of course, that the weather was directly influenced by the god(s). A few fundamentalists even believe this nowadays!

Finella

12th June 2003, 07:26 PM

Triadboy, thank you for recapping me on the Sumerian flood story.

I actually had quite a long reply to you that I attempted to submit last night, but lost it since apparently my login must've timed out. I'll be smarter this time. However, since I have had a bit more time to think this out, I've decided that such a long reply isn't necessary.

Originally posted by triadboy

So something like UFOs are validated as truth because sightings happen all the time in all parts of the world? Flood stories occur in virtually all societies that are near the water. This doesn't mean the floods are connected.

You know, I have explained my two definitions of truth/Truth to you several times. In the line from my post to which this quote of yours refers, I even write my definition out for you in the context of the sentence, spelling it with a capital 'T' and adding, "in the life lesson, moral, deep common human connection sense." Therefore, of course I don't conclude that since people have experienced UFO "sightings" all over the world that there are in fact UFOs. There is no factual evidence -- that is, "truth" with a lower-case 't' -- to validate the existence of UFOs. But what does it mean that all these people are seemingly sighting UFOs? What Truth -- note capital 'T', "in the in the life lesson, moral, deep common human connection sense" -- can be gleaned from this? I couldn't tell you exactly, but there's something happening there, some search for something -- perhaps humans not wanting to be alone in the universe. ::shrug::

So if flood stories are common in cultures near water, as are stories of humankind trying to survive against nature in all kinds of geographical situations, and God is somehow trying to help humankind out, then what does that tell us about the people who wrote and told the story -- what is the Truth (there's that darn capital 'T' again) in the story?

In this case, the flood story is an ancient Sumarian story recalling, in mythic terms, a massive local flood. This story, as part of the Epic of Gilgamesh, is one of the oldest written stories known to man. It is a homage to this societies stuggles with nature.

So the Israelites obscond the story - recast the hero as an Israelite - cast their god, Yahweh, as the angry god - and make it a global flood - they make it their own - even though they didn't live it. What does that say about the Israelite culture? Nothing! It's a stolen tale inserted into the Israelites' book of cherished stories.

So are you saying that personal experience with a struggle is the only way to find and express meaning? Is West Side Story a lousy and "stolen" tale because Leonard Bernstein reworked the plot from Shakespeare? What about movie versions of books? We have borrowed -- nay, "obsconded" -- fairy tales from Germany and cleaned them up to make movies out of them for our children (e.g., Disney's version of The Little Mermaid). These must be worthless too, according to your argument.

If you believe it to be a global story you are wrong immediately.

Triadboy, listen carefully. I do not care whether it was a global or local flood. Really. It does not matter to my faith in the least.

I think, really, we do agree on the principle that, honestly, yes, a lot of the Bible stories are pretty out there and are unlikely to have actually happened. I can appreciate your scholarship and attention to the historical and cultural details. This is necessary Biblical scholarship. But it is not all there is to understanding the whole meaning of these texts. There is a larger picture, which does not need the details in order for the whole to be meaningful. You are painting a wonderful picture of the cells of the bark of a white pine in the forest on a mountain range in the continental divide, not at all noticing the tree let alone that the tree is on a planet in a solar system in a universe.

I think I have more than met you halfway in this -- after all, I agree with you on the factual truth (lower-case 't') of the events in the Bible. You do not seem at all to be willing to consider my explanations which you continually demand, maintaining your concrete understanding of these stories. I honestly can't explain it any better. And I won't try to do so anymore unless I see that you're actually trying to understand what I'm taking this time to explain.

I challenge you to supply an OT story that is not poppycock. There are a couple, but I don't think you will spot them.

You need to define "poppycock," otherwise I forsee another 4-page-long debate. There are heaps of stories I find meaningful in the OT, and my only regret as a cradle Episcopalian is that I don't know the OT better than I do. I won't take up your challenge until I know what you are trying to get me to refute.

triadboy

12th June 2003, 08:28 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella
But what does it mean that all these people are seemingly sighting UFOs? What Truth -- note capital 'T', "in the in the life lesson, moral, deep common human connection sense"

People who see UFOs want and need[/b] to see UFOs. They have this need to [i]know. It is akin to religious people hearing the voice of God, seeing the virgin Mary, seeing angels, seeing Satan, etc. Psychologically, it is a validation of existence. The lesson is - people don't know their own minds enough to discern baseless faith.

So if flood stories are common in cultures near water, as are stories of humankind trying to survive against nature in all kinds of geographical situations, and God is somehow trying to help humankind out, then what does that tell us about the people who wrote and told the story -- what is the Truth in the story?

The story is universal and timeless. It's always been with us and it's always the same story. (Read The Hero With A Thousand Faces - Joseph Campbell) Our hero leaves this plane of existence and obtains some kind of device or knowledge that will save his people. He returns and saves his people with this new-found knowledge/power. As Carl Jung noted, it is archetypal. It is something fixed within our being. We carry it with us. No one knows why we like this story so much, but George Lucas was a big fan of Campbell and wrote Star Wars following this template.

[Three days ago the interview with Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell came on PBS during their fund-raising week. It is called The Power of Myth. It should be required viewing by everyone.]

So are you saying that personal experience with a struggle is the only way to find and express meaning?

No, but to grab a mythic story and twist it around to be the historically-real cornerstone of a religion is slightly dishonest.

Is West Side Story a lousy and "stolen" tale because Leonard Bernstein reworked the plot from Shakespeare?

I understand your point, but Leonard is not telling you it is historically real.

I do not care whether it was a global or local flood. Really. It does not matter to my faith in the least.

I understand by this statement, you do not think the bible is the [i]inspired word of God? I understand you to say the bible is man's attempt to know god and his ways through myth and allegory. I can respect that. I can't respect a literal translation.

There is a larger picture, which does not need the details in order for the whole to be meaningful. You are painting a wonderful picture of the cells of the bark of a white pine in the forest on a mountain range in the continental divide, not at all noticing the tree let alone that the tree is on a planet in a solar system in a universe.

Once you read the religious texts from other religions and compare them with the various myths from all walks of life - THEN YOU SEE!

I honestly can't explain it any better. And I won't try to do so anymore unless I see that you're actually trying to understand what I'm taking this time to explain.

Again remember I was dealing with Christian who take a literal view of the bible.

You need to define "poppycock,"

Supply any OT story that is historically accurate

Finella

13th June 2003, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by triadboy

People who see UFOs want and need to see UFOs. They have this need to know. It is akin to religious people hearing the voice of God, seeing the virgin Mary, seeing angels, seeing Satan, etc. Psychologically, it is a validation of existence. The lesson is - people don't know their own minds enough to discern baseless faith.[/b]

That is an interpretation of the motivations, surely. I am sure there are other, deeper explanations as well. I would not, however, lump all religious experiences into this category.

The story is universal and timeless. It's always been with us and it's always the same story.

Ah! So the Jewish people's "stealing" this story is not a way for them to express this universal experience? You are being inconsistent here, my friend.

(Read [i]The Hero With A Thousand Faces - Joseph Campbell) Our hero leaves this plane of existence and obtains some kind of device or knowledge that will save his people. He returns and saves his people with this new-found knowledge/power. As Carl Jung noted, it is archetypal. It is something fixed within our being. We carry it with us. No one knows why we like this story so much, but George Lucas was a big fan of Campbell and wrote Star Wars following this template.

Obviously, there is a need for a spiritual connection -- hence why Star Wars was such a powerful movie for people, hence why such universal stories are so meaningful.

Interestingly, the fact (lower case 't') that humankind experiences the same story all over the world -- hunh, in a way it kinda is a global flood. Weird, hunh? :D

(You do seem to be getting my points. this is how I prefer to debate with you, thanks.)

[Three days ago the interview with Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell came on PBS during their fund-raising week. It is called The Power of Myth. It should be required viewing by everyone.]
Agh, sorry I missed it. I'll look it up -- they often repeat these things. :P

No, but to grab a mythic story and twist it around to be the historically-real cornerstone of a religion is slightly dishonest.
I don't think you'll find that such a literal, historical interpretation of the bible has always been the norm. Another book you would enjoy is Liberating the Gospels by John Shelby Spong. Although it refers to the current NT gospels and not the OT, he makes the argument that the writers and the culture at the time were not concerned with fact ['t'ruth] but with the god-like importance of the figures in the writings ['T'ruth] and thus wrote about Jesus' miracles and fulfillment of prophecies, not because they actually happened, but because these stories would illustrate to the listener/reader Jesus' importance. It was not meant ever to be taken literally, according to Spong. (Of course, this is not a popular view in Christianity today.)

I understand your point, but Leonard is not telling you it is historically real.

And I continue to assert that the flood story was not intended to be historically real, either.

Cute image - :) And glad you recognize this. Realize that I'm not trying to invalidate Christian's, argument, I'm just saying that even if the historical accuracy of the Bible was found wanting, that would not shake my faith in God.

[i]I do not care whether it was a global or local flood. Really. It does not matter to my faith in the least.

I understand by this statement, you do not think the bible is the inspired word of God? I understand you to say the bible is man's attempt to know god and his ways through myth and allegory. I can respect that. I can't respect a literal translation.
Inspired in a symbolic, Truth, larger meaning sense, yes. Not necessarily in a factual, God-actually-wrote-it sense. I'm not an inerrantist, as skeptics here might say.

Once you read the religious texts from other religions and compare them with the various myths from all walks of life - THEN YOU SEE!
You're skipping a step, however. You say you want to understand how it is that, even with historical snags in the Bible, Christians can still believe in these stories, right? And I'm trying to explain. You see things on the hugely large yet detailed scale, comparing these texts to the similar ones in other faiths, and comparing them to the scientific and historical facts of the time in which they were written. This is good and necessary, as I say. But you have not looked at the Judeo-Christian texts as a Jew or Christian would and seen them as illustrating a love story between God and his/her people. Until you can look at each faith and its view of the scriptures within the context of that faith, you will forever be confounded about HOW it is that these texts can be believed.

You need to define "poppycock,"

Supply any OT story that is historically accurate

Ah, well, as you can tell from my post thus far, I don't believe I could make any such argument. And I don't think it's necessary to.

triadboy

14th June 2003, 07:49 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella
Ah! So the Jewish people's "stealing" this story is not a way for them to express this universal experience? You are being inconsistent here, my friend.

I don't understand how I'm being inconsistent. If I (for instance) took your life growing up in the Hamptons with wealthy parents and claimed it was my life - you would feel this is wrong. But when the Jews walk down the grocery aisle of myths and take one from this culture and one from that culture - somehow you acknowledge these as having a rightful place in their traditions? They gathered and twisted these myths to bolster their own "history", but it was a stolen history.

I don't think you'll find that such a literal, historical interpretation of the bible has always been the norm. It was not meant ever to be taken literally, according to Spong. (Of course, this is not a popular view in Christianity today.)

I agree. As a matter of fact, early Pagan writers wrote scathing commentaries about the new Xians - who seemed to believe their myth was actually history! They laughed at them (and rightly so) for being so naive. The early Xian church fathers were very concerned with this: How could their history of Jesus be so much like the myth of Mithra/Dionysus/Osiris/etc? What will we tell our people? The answer they came up with: Satan generated these similar myths prior to Jesus to confuse non-believers when Jesus came! (That's your church fathers at work)

Realize that I'm not trying to invalidate Christian's, argument, I'm just saying that even if the historical accuracy of the Bible was found wanting, that would not shake my faith in God

For most Xians, the bible is the inerrant word of God. To find one error is to throw the whole bible into chaos. Seeing how the bible is FULL of errors - you can imagine how exasperating it is to talk intelligently to these people.

But you have not looked at the Judeo-Christian texts as a Jew or Christian would and seen them as illustrating a love story between God and his/her people. Until you can look at each faith and its view of the scriptures within the context of that faith, you will forever be confounded about HOW it is that these texts can be believed.

Xians love to say "Judeo-Christian", even though the Jews don't believe anything purported by the Xians...and the Xians believe only what they want to in the OT.

Looking at these texts as a [i]Jew or a Christian would[/b] would be two entirely different things! For instance, the Torah has a completely different order and level of story importance then the NT. The Xians rearranged it to their liking. Torah commentaries are important to Jews. But to a Christian - if it ain't in the book it's not real. It's apples and oranges.

asthmatic camel

29th June 2003, 02:11 AM

TRIADBOY
[I understand you don't feel this way, but remember I was just dealing with Christian and you march to a different kettle of fish.]

March to a different kettle of fish ?!?:confused:

triadboy

29th June 2003, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
TRIADBOY
March to a different kettle of fish ?!?:confused:

Don't you love that? The regular saying is "March to the beat of a different drummer". There is also a saying about something being a "different kettle of fish" (I forget how that goes) It just sounds funny to me to "march to a different kettle of fish". :>D

Finella

30th June 2003, 08:05 AM

Ah, I hadn't realized I had left you hanging in this thread, Triadboy. My apologies. I took a break and now I'm back...

Originally posted by triadboy
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella
Ah! So the Jewish people's "stealing" this story is not a way for them to express this universal experience? You are being inconsistent here, my friend.

I don't understand how I'm being inconsistent.

You said the flood story was universal and timeless. Then you said that the Jews stole this story from another culture. So the story is both universal and not?

Xians love to say "Judeo-Christian", even though the Jews don't believe anything purported by the Xians...and the Xians believe only what they want to in the OT.

Looking at these texts as a Jew or a Christian would would be two entirely different things! For instance, the Torah has a completely different order and level of story importance then the NT. The Xians rearranged it to their liking. Torah commentaries are important to Jews. But to a Christian - if it ain't in the book it's not real. It's apples and oranges.

First, again, you are overgeneralizing the kind of faith Christians and Jews have. The "if it ain't in the book it's not real" viewpoint is definitely not the way all Christians think. It may be the way the loudest, most obnoxiously evangelical Christians think, but not all.

All I was asking you to do was to perhaps put yourself in the place of a Jew or a Christian (and, yes, I do realize that the two perspectives are very different! That's why I said both of those views!) in order to gain a more thorough understanding of why the scriptures are important. Unfortunately, I see that this may be difficult if your understanding of Christians, for example, is limited to the fundamentalist, the-Bible-is-totally-inerrant kind. But maybe you can still try. What would it really mean to you if these stories were a part of your belief system? How would it affect the way you relate to others and even yourself?

---,---'--{@

triadboy

30th June 2003, 11:41 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella
You said the flood story was universal and timeless. Then you said that the Jews stole this story from another culture. So the story is both universal and not?

A flood story consistently turns up in ancient coastal and river communities. In this regard, it is universal (all over the world) and timeless (one of the oldest texts in existence speaks of the flood that Utnapishtim endured).

However the Jewish flood tale is strikingly similar to the Utnapishtim story. It is SO similar, one can't help but realize it is 'borrowed'.

So now the Jews have a borrowed story they make their own. They add Jewish characters - they embellish the god/man conflict - they exaggerate the size of the flood - they make ill-advised statements about gathering 'one of every kind' etc.

It is an obvious truth that Noahs flood never happened. Yet it is believed as history!

What would it really mean to you if these stories were a part of your belief system? How would it affect the way you relate to others and even yourself?

It would mean I could look at a whale and think, "You know?....I'll bet I could live in one of those!" :-)

It would mean I believe we have different languages because, at one time, man tried to build a tower all the way to 'heaven'. God got so nervous by this that He, his son, Jebus, and the Holy Ghost 'came down' and confounded our languages.

It would mean I believe in talking snakes and talking asses (non political)

It would mean I believe someone can turn water into wine and raise the dead.

etc. etc. etc.

ntech

1st July 2003, 10:50 AM

All are BS
None of the above

triadboy

1st July 2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by ntech
All are BS
None of the above

Correct! You win a brand new Buick!

asthmatic camel

2nd July 2003, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by triadboy

Don't you love that? The regular saying is "March to the beat of a different drummer". There is also a saying about something being a "different kettle of fish" (I forget how that goes) It just sounds funny to me to "march to a different kettle of fish". :>D

I do love it; wonderfully surreal. I'm off to my easel to create a masterpiece worthy of Dali...

Regards

AC

Finella

2nd July 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

A flood story consistently turns up in ancient coastal and river communities. In this regard, it is universal (all over the world) and timeless (one of the oldest texts in existence speaks of the flood that Utnapishtim endured).

However the Jewish flood tale is strikingly similar to the Utnapishtim story. It is SO similar, one can't help but realize it is 'borrowed'.

So now the Jews have a borrowed story they make their own. They add Jewish characters - they embellish the god/man conflict - they exaggerate the size of the flood - they make ill-advised statements about gathering 'one of every kind' etc.

It is an obvious truth that Noahs flood never happened. Yet it is believed as history!

We "borrow" stuff all the time. Have been for eons, as you have noted earlier several times. I still don't think this is a crime, and I still think you are making the mistake of assuming that it was intentionally done to mislead generations of Jews into believing that a literal flood took place with a guy named Noah at the helm of a mammoth boat. In fact, we already discussed that not all cultures used these kinds of stories to relay literal fact -- you even elaborated on this earlier when you shared that the European pagans thought these Christians were being silly for thinking the pagan stories were literally true. So be consistent. I don't think the people who "borrowed" the story did so to imply some factual event. People a millenium or two later, though, with their culture, their communal psychology, whatever, did believe it to be fact, and I think it is this which is your bone to pick.

It would mean I could look at a whale and think, "You know?....I'll bet I could live in one of those!" :-)

It would mean I believe we have different languages because, at one time, man tried to build a tower all the way to 'heaven'. God got so nervous by this that He, his son, Jebus, and the Holy Ghost 'came down' and confounded our languages.

It would mean I believe in talking snakes and talking asses (non political)

It would mean I believe someone can turn water into wine and raise the dead.

etc. etc. etc.

::shrug:: You're still stuck in the scriptural forest, my friend. Are you this literal when you think about fairy tales?

---,---'--{@

triadboy

2nd July 2003, 07:35 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella
We "borrow" stuff all the time. Have been for eons, as you have noted earlier several times. I still don't think this is a crime, and I still think you are making the mistake of assuming that it was intentionally done to mislead generations of Jews into believing that a literal flood took place with a guy named Noah at the helm of a mammoth boat.

But you DO understand that many Jews and Xians believe everyone is decended from Noah and his family? That the curse of Ham directly relates to black people? This was believed by the Mormons until recently, until someone in the Mormon church finally had a 'revelation'.

You're still stuck in the scriptural forest, my friend. Are you this literal when you think about fairy tales?

But the scriptures are all you have to go on! I don't get you: you call the bible fairy tales, but you maintain some kind of faith ... in something...what exactly, you won't reveal.

Are you a Xian? If so, then you buy into the Jesus fairy tale. If not, then we can both agree that the OT/NT are myths and shake our heads that we have been debating this long over nothing.

Finella

3rd July 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by triadboy

But you DO understand that many Jews and Xians believe everyone is decended from Noah and his family? That the curse of Ham directly relates to black people? This was believed by the Mormons until recently, until someone in the Mormon church finally had a 'revelation'.
Yes. And I agree with you that this is not a good thing. But don't blame the Jews for taking this story and incorporating it into their faith for this misinterpretation! It's the last 1000 years or so where Christians have applied meanings to scripture which the original authors did not intend. This is the usefulness of your Biblical scholarship, I think -- to study not only the origin of the writings, but to understand their original meaning.

But the scriptures are all you have to go on! I don't get you: you call the bible fairy tales, but you maintain some kind of faith ... in something...what exactly, you won't reveal.

No, the scriptures are not all I have to go on. I have writings from saints and sages since Christ; I have my own personal relationship with God which is perhaps most meaningful only to me, but it is there. I have mentors who demonstrate the benefits of a Christian life, who I learn from. I attend to the consenus of all of these things, which illustrates the ultimate meaning of the scriptures -- that God created us, loves us, and wants us to recognize that s/he is present at every moment. That is what my faith is, in basic terms.

Are you a Xian? If so, then you buy into the Jesus fairy tale. If not, then we can both agree that the OT/NT are myths and shake our heads that we have been debating this long over nothing.
I am indeed a Christian. As to how I can believe in Jesus without believing in the historical Bible, let alone the gospels, then I'm just going to have to point you back to page one of this thread and ask you to re-read. I've explained this concept several times over already.

---,---'--{@

triadboy

3rd July 2003, 04:51 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Finella
Yes. And I agree with you that this is not a good thing. But don't blame the Jews for taking this story and incorporating it into their faith for this misinterpretation! It's the last 1000 years or so where Christians have applied meanings to scripture which the original authors did not intend. This is the usefulness of your Biblical scholarship, I think -- to study not only the origin of the writings, but to understand their original meaning.

Do the Jews believe the OT is Jewish history?

They sure seemed to get some land because of their belief in this history. In the OT, Israel was given to them by Yahweh (much to the surprise of the Canaanites).
Later they left and the Palistinians moved in for hundreds of years. The UN gave Israel back to the Jews in 1947 (much to the surprise of the Palistinians), because "God" had originally given the Jews that land.

Everybody: Please correct me if I'm wrong with this timeline. I admit, I lack a complete understanding of these events. It boggles my mine. Surely I can't be right.

No, the scriptures are not all I have to go on. I have writings from saints and sages since Christ;

eewwww...you believe in saints? What the hell are you?! You're not Catholic, but you believe in saints. You don't really care about the Gospels, but you believe in Jesus. The think the OT is full of fairy tales. You're like some kind of religion mutt!

Please name a "sage" you admire.

...that God created us, loves us, and wants us to recognize that s/he is present at every moment. That is what my faith is, in basic terms.

But this epiphany comes from your own mind. You just think it makes better sense for it to be that way.

I am indeed a Christian. As to how I can believe in Jesus without believing in the historical Bible, let alone the gospels, then I'm just going to have to point you back to page one of this thread and ask you to re-read. I've explained this concept several times over already.

Please answer it again, so I can read it in the flow of things.

Loki

3rd July 2003, 05:21 PM

Finella,

... I have my own personal relationship with God ...
How do you have a "personal relationship" with a disembodied concept? What sense of the term 'relationship' is being expressed by you here?

Finella

11th July 2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

Do the Jews believe the OT is Jewish history?

They sure seemed to get some land because of their belief in this history. In the OT, Israel was given to them by Yahweh (much to the surprise of the Canaanites).
Later they left and the Palistinians moved in for hundreds of years. The UN gave Israel back to the Jews in 1947 (much to the surprise of the Palistinians), because "God" had originally given the Jews that land.

Everybody: Please correct me if I'm wrong with this timeline. I admit, I lack a complete understanding of these events. It boggles my mine. Surely I can't be right.

I think you more or less have it right. But I disagree that the UN "gave" Israel to the Jews because Yahweh had given it to the Jews millennia ago; there were were a combination of factors, including an immense amount of worldwide guilt and shame for what happened to the Jewish people in WWII. I admit that I am likewise a bit short on knowledge in this area, too, though.

Not to get distracted from your original point: I think the Jews see the OT as a kind of history, but not all may view it as literal history. In the Spong book I keep referring to, he writes that the Jewish people traditionally told oral history, often with elaboration and reference to the prophets in order to convey the importance of historical events -- not for the purpose of conveying the actual events. Note the difference -- the importance was stressed, not the facts. Thus, to go back to the Noah example, we cannot assume that the Jews took the story in order to convey a factual flood. There was some importance that was trying to be conveyed -- again, some kind of universal Truth. To try to now turn it into a factual event is to apply another meaning system on the text. Thus the Jews are not at fault for people believing in a literal Noah and a flood and an ark of animals, other societies are at fault for misinterpreting the real point of the story.

eewwww...you believe in saints? What the hell are you?! You're not Catholic, but you believe in saints. You don't really care about the Gospels, but you believe in Jesus. The think the OT is full of fairy tales. You're like some kind of religion mutt!

Amazing what you project onto me with the things I say. :)

I believe there are people who had a deep connection with God and lived a great example of a Christian life. Some of these people were recognized as saints, some as sages, some as mystics. I don't pray to saints, I honestly don't understand why people would. But I have read some of their stuff and generally I can see why they are highly regarded.

Please name a "sage" you admire.

I'm more into the mystics, like Teresa of Avila, Hildegard of Bingen. I've been told Augustine had some good things to say about music and God, but I haven't gotten to that yet.

"...that God created us, loves us, and wants us to recognize that s/he is present at every moment. That is what my faith is, in basic terms."

But this epiphany comes from your own mind. You just think it makes better sense for it to be that way.

It comes from my own experience, yes. I'm confused as to what you mean in your second sentence here.

"I am indeed a Christian. As to how I can believe in Jesus without believing in the historical Bible, let alone the gospels, then I'm just going to have to point you back to page one of this thread and ask you to re-read. I've explained this concept several times over already."

Please answer it again, so I can read it in the flow of things.

See the bit above about the Jewish culture's way of conveying history? This is how I think the gospels were written. Again, the Spong book describes the timeline of how each gospel was created and how each gospel correlated to the Jewish calendar in order to relate meaningfully to the celebration of festivals and holy days. Thus we can see that the gospels are not exact correlates, as they have different orders of some events and some details are different. But, as I said before, the intent of writing the gospels came out of an understanding that the text was to convey the importance of Jesus -- that he was the Son of God. Thus prophecies needed to be referred to, events had to be completed and fulfulled. The actual fact of whether or not these events happened was not important in this culture.

Therefore, for us to assume that these events actually happened is to impose a different interpretation on the gospels than what the authors intended. Some things may be factually true, there may be some elements that are factually true, but the whole of it may not be factually related in the gospels. What is related is some kind of transcendent, universal Truth -- God expressed his/her love for us in a person somehow. The parables and the biblical events illustrate this in a symbolic - maybe factual, maybe not - way.

If you don't understand it this time, then I'm just going to have to mail you some books... my fingers are getting worn out. :P

---,---'--{@