Ages In Scripture

[DMagoh]

I didn't say that Jesus was a liar and a deceiver. I said that the flood story could very well be a myth that was handed down from generation to generation. Not everything in the Bible literally occurred as written; the Bible is chock full of symbolism and parables. Jesus Himself spoke in parables quite often.

This is becoming a discussion about Bible interpretation and less about the subject at hand. Nobody disbelieves Jesus because they think that the sotry of Noah never happened. It's an acknowledgement of the limitations of science in Bible times and the fact that many of the stories in the Bible were symbolic.

You say you took a class in logic (and I have no reason to question whether you really did take that class), but the logic does not follow. You can acknowledge that there are parables in the Bible and still believe what Jesus taught. There is no mutual exclusivity.
Ringo

37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.


So let's look at the verse. You are saying that Jesus was basically saying, "You know that fairy tale we like to tell to our children? I'm coming back, when the people on the earth are just like they were in that fairy tale."

Of course, I never have figured out why the Israelites would make up that story like it was true and actually happened, and then Jesus would legitimize it as if it actually happened when He would have known it didnt.

Secondly... so how do you decide what's true and what's just a cute story? What if the resurrection was just a cute story?

 

[ebia]

37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.


So let's look at the verse. You are saying that Jesus was basically saying, "You know that fairy tale we like to tell to our children? I'm coming back, when the people on the earth are just like they were in that fairy tale."

If you replace 'cute fairy tale we like to tell our children' (which is a pathetic attempt to twist the line to make it look absurd when it isn't) with 'story our ancestors have always told', then yes. Only in the modernist, western, mindset could stories be seen as something primarily for the entertainment of children. For most of people through most of history and still in most of the world, stories are how adults convey their most important truths. Only someone terribly arrogant about their own (enlightment, non-Christian) culture over other cultures could possibly think that.

Of course, I never have figured out why the Israelites would make up that story like it was true and actually happened, and then Jesus would legitimize it as if it actually happened when He would have known it didnt.

There is so much wrong with this sentence that it's just about impossible to correct it without throwing the whole thing out.

What it shows is absolutely no engagement with how anyone except a western modernist sees the world or conveys understanding about it.

Secondly... so how do you decide what's true and what's just a cute story?

1. The flood is not 'just a cute story'. The choice isn't "historical account" or "cute story". The choice is "historical account" or "theologically significant story".

What if the resurrection was just a cute story?

Because they don't react like it is. If it's not a historical physical, event then they would have no reason to write about Jesus at all - he would have been proven to be just another failed messiah, executed like the many others, and his followers would have disbanded like the followers of all the others did. And the timescale is all wrong. And any number of other reasons.

You might just as well ask how I know the Oxford Dictionary isn't a made up story - after all it sits on the same bookshelf as "The Lord of the Rings".

 

[ParsonJefferson]

What we're clearly seeing here, in Ebia's arguments, is theological liberalism. If that's the perspective you want to take toward Scripture, that is your choice.

But how about being a little less than derogatory toward those who disagree with you?

How about a little less use of phrases such as, "That's a steaming load of..."? They certainly don't add anything to what is supposed to be an adult discussion.

 

[BradC]

What other conclusion is there to arrive at, DMagoh? If there was a global flood, the evidence for it would be ridiculously obvious. We'd see signs of it having happened everywhere. We wouldn't even have to dig very far. If it did happen, I have to ask myself "Why don't we see evidence of it?"

The flood was not global. I know this because using the hypothesis that it was global would lead us to expect certain things of the geological record. We find none of those things. The geological record does not show any evidence of such a flood occurring any time in the last 10,000 years, or indeed any of humanity's timeline.

Evidence like a global catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs or maybe fish fossils high up in mountain ranges. Another interesting point is has anyone ever noticed after a fish fossil find in the middle of the desert or some such place, this said place used to be an ocean or the like trillions of years ago


God bless you all. Brad

 

[ebia]

What we're clearly seeing here, in Ebia's arguments, is theological liberalism. If that's the perspective you want to take toward Scripture, that is your choice.

But how about being a little less than derogatory toward those who disagree with you?

How about a little less use of phrases such as, "That's a steaming load of..."? They certainly don't add anything to what is supposed to be an adult discussion.

Neither do inaccurate labels like "theological liberalism".

 

[Ringo84]

What we're clearly seeing here, in Ebia's arguments, is theological liberalism. If that's the perspective you want to take toward Scripture, that is your choice.

But how about being a little less than derogatory toward those who disagree with you?

How about a little less use of phrases such as, "That's a steaming load of..."? They certainly don't add anything to what is supposed to be an adult discussion.

Theological liberalism?! Oh no! Anything but theological liberalism! Why, that's Satan himself!
Ringo

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Neither do inaccurate labels like "theological liberalism".

Your stance is point blank 19th Century European liberal theology. It's okay, you can admit it.

But you really should stop with the stuff like, "That's a load of steaming..."

I'll report the next one.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Theological liberalism?! Oh no! Anything but theological liberalism! Why, that's Satan himself!
Ringo

I don't believe I ever said that, did I?

But honesty would demand that Classic 19th Century Liberalism has some specific points of reference from which it views everything.

 

[ebia]

Your stance is point blank 19th Century European liberal theology. It's okay, you can admit it.

Keep trying - someone might buy it.

"Don't like a view you disagree with - don't bother addressing it; just label it as 'liberal something' and then dismiss it. If is much easier if you never need to be challenged by a view different from your own. Don't worry about getting the label right - you won't care, and neither will the people you agree with; just make sure you include the world "liberal" and your work is done"

But you really should stop with the stuff like, "That's a load of steaming..."

I'll report the next one.

Report it, or don't report it, but don't keep complaining about it.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Keep trying - someone might buy it.

"Don't like a view you disagree with - don't bother addressing it; just label it as 'liberal something' and then dismiss it. If is much easier if you never need to be challenged by a view different from your own. Don't worry about getting the label right - you won't care, and neither will the people you agree with; just make sure you include the world "liberal" and your work is done"


Report it, or don't report it, but don't keep complaining about it.

Grow up...

 

[Sojourner<><]

I just had a thought about scientific theories, and please correct me if I'm wrong... The amount of evidence supporting a theory cannot itself support that theory since the total amount could be the product of bias within the population of researchers that is generating that evidence. Therefore, no matter how much evidence there is to support a particular theory, the entire body of evidence is only as good as its best. Can anyone name a piece of evidence that conclusively proves the theory of evolution?

 

[KerrMetric]

. Can anyone name a piece of evidence that conclusively proves the theory of evolution?

Technically speaking you can never prove a scientific theory. Now, a theory can be so well supported and grounded in evidence that in an everyday language sense it would be considered "proven" but it truly can never be proven. The theory of gravity is not proven. The theory of electromagnetism is not proven.

And single pieces of "evidence" even in an everyday sense of "proven" do not do the trick. Evolution like most scientific theories rests on multiple lines of evidence.

 

[KerrMetric]

Grow up...

LOL - this coming from someone who just threatened the other user with using that well known refuge for children - the report button.

pots and kettles my friend.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Technically speaking you can never prove a scientific theory. Now, a theory can be so well supported and grounded in evidence that in an everyday language sense it would be considered "proven" but it truly can never be proven. The theory of gravity is not proven. The theory of electromagnetism is not proven.

And single pieces of "evidence" even in an everyday sense of "proven" do not do the trick. Evolution like most scientific theories rests on multiple lines of evidence.

Ok then, if a theory can never be proven, what purpose is there in gathering evidence?

 

[KerrMetric]

Ok then, if a theory can never be proven, what purpose is there in gathering evidence?

Something doesn't have to be proven for it to be of value. As I said - the theory of gravity is not proven in a strict sense but it doesn't mean we cannot use that theory to predict the outcome of experiments. In an absolute sense proof is for mathematics, bottles of liquor and supposedly courts of law.

We have a theory of gravity, we make predictions based upon that and they always seem to give the correct answers BUT that still technically speaking is not proof. We still gather evidence just in case we find contradictions that can then lead to improvement of the theory.

All of this comes down to the fact that theory and proof have everyday usages that are not the same as their stricter usage in science.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

LOL - this coming from someone who just threatened the other user with using that well known refuge for children - the report button.

pots and kettles my friend.

Actually, I'm trying to encourage Ebia to grow up and engage in some sort of mature discussion - rather than say stuff like "you're demonizing..." and "that's a steaming load of...".

I simply wish he'd take the high road - and that maybe you'd follow.

 

[DMagoh]

LOL - this coming from someone who just threatened the other user with using that well known refuge for children - the report button.

Aaaaahh. So you are one of those who, instead of calling the police, feel you should take justice into your hands.

 

[KerrMetric]

Just pointing out a well known message board fact. Some users use the report button like others use heroin. I think in my approx. 4000 posts if I have pressed the report button more than 10 times I'd be shocked - and several of those were not to actually report the post but to get a Mods attention.

To be honest, on CF I'd guess 95% of reports are completely unnecessary. In fact like my post you quoted which ParsonJefferson actually reported. Some people cannot act responsible with that button.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

Just pointing out a well known message board fact. Some users use the report button like others use heroin. I think in my approx. 4000 posts if I have pressed the report button more than 10 times I'd be shocked - and several of those were not to actually report the post but to get a Mods attention.

To be honest, on CF I'd guess 95% of reports are completely unnecessary. In fact like my post you quoted which ParsonJefferson actually reported. Some people cannot act responsible with that button.

I'll continue to report posts like this one.

Why?

Because it's what the mods/admins REPEATEDLY say we are supposed to do. All I'm doing is abiding by the forum rules, rather than engaging in a chest-beating contest with you and your ilk.

You can call it whatever you like.

 

[KerrMetric]

No that's what the OLD CF was like. Whine and cry like children.

I did not insult your faith or you personally which would be flaming. But I commented upon the childish levels of reporting going on around here.