The Flood

[Nathan Poe]

[bible]Hebrews 11:1[/bible]

So, that's a "yes." You really, really really believe it, so according to the Bible, it's true.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, that's a "yes." You really, really really believe it, so according to the Bible, it's true.

It's true --- whether I believe it or not.

[bible]John 17:17[/bible]

 

[LeeC]

And he didn't even do a good job of this, either.
With no collar bones or shoulders, it is impossible for a snake to have front legs.
But they can still have back legs...

WOW... snakes have legs, I didn't know that.

Any ideas how they could have talked in the Garden 6,000 years ago?

Lee

 

[AV1611VET]

WOW... snakes have legs, I didn't know that.

Any ideas how they could have talked in the Garden 6,000 years ago?

Lee

Probably the same way they communicate today --- it's not that the serpent spoke Eve's language --- it's that Eve understood what the serpent was saying.

[bible]Acts 2:8[/bible]

 

[thaumaturgy]

This is for you, Thaumaturgy, from Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 17-18:

The allegorical interpretation of the sacred Scriptures cannot be historically proved to have prevailed among the Jews from the time of the captivity, or to have been common with the Jews of Palestine at the time of Christ and his apostles.

Although the Sanhedrin and the hearers of Jesus often appealed to the Old Testament, yet they give no indication of the allegorical interpretation; even Josephus has nothing of it. The Platonic Jews of Egypt began in the first century, in imitation of the heathen Greeks, to interpret the Old Testament allegorically. Philo of Alexandria was distinguished among those Jews who practised this method; and he defends it as something new and before unheard of, and for that reason opposed by the other Jews. Jesus was not, therefore, in a situation in which he was compelled to comply with a prevailing custom of allegorical interpretation; for this method did not prevail at the time among the Jews, certainly not in Palestine, where Jesus taught.

NOTE: I said nothing about how ancient people interpretted Genesis. I will even grant that perhaps the original authors thought they were coming up with a story that was literally true, who knows? You don't.

What I was debating was Inan's contention that the "wording" of Genesis doesn't fit an allegorical model.

So far she has not backed that up.

Genesis can be allegorical and considering what we know today, has really only utility as an allegory.

But I will gladly grant that the ancients without a grasp of history or science might very well have thought this myth bore some semblance to reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I will gladly grant that the ancients without a grasp of history or science might very well have thought this myth bore some semblance to reality.

Those "ancients" would also include the Son of the "Ancient of Days," would it not?

[bible]Daniel 7:13[/bible]

And since Jesus interpreted Genesis 1 literally --- so do I.

 

[AV1611VET]

So far she has not backed that up.

I beg to differ.

http://www3.telus.net/csabc/StraightForward.html

This is one of the best apologetics on a literal Genesis 1 I have ever seen.

I like arguments 2 and 5a.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I beg to differ.

After a couple days worth of posts asking for her defense of her stance she finally posted something.

It would have been nice had she actually presented her understanding early on.

I will grant that this does represent someone's "take" on the wording.

However, again, there is no indication that the word "allegory" does not include stories that include phrases like "these are the generations".

I really don't care how people interpret Genesis at this point. I think it silly to cling to a literal Gensis, but if that's what floats yer boat, matey...

What I find annoying is that some (Inan) makes the claim that the "wording" of Genesis doesn't fit an allegory. But when presented with numerous definitions of the word "allegory" she can't bother to actually defend her stance.

But further, again, I'll ask, now rolling in our friends at TELUS.NET:

What part of the definition of allegory makes it impossible for Genesis to be an allegory?

Let's look at some of their Arguments per se:

Arg #4: Within the disputed first eleven chapters of Genesis, mention is made of 64 geographical terms, 88 personal names, and some 20 identifiable cultural items (e.g., gold, onyx, brass, iron, mortar, musical instruments, cities). In the first two chapters, such “real world” categories are found notably in Genesis 2:8-14. (Such specificity is not expected in a “myth.&#8221

So if a story states an actual physical place it can't be an allegory? Again, I don't see it.

The book "The Confidence Man" by Herman Mellville is considered by some to be an allegory and it mentions the Mississippi River. Does that mean it isn't an allegory?

The Confidence-Man uses the Mississippi River as a metaphor for those broader aspects of American and human identity that unify the otherwise disparate characters. Melville also employs the river's fluidity as a reflection and backdrop of the shifting identities of his "confidence man."

The novel is written as cultural satire, allegory, and metaphysical treatise, dealing with themes of sincerity, identity, morality, religiosity, economic materialism, irony, and cynicism.
(SOURCE)

Arg #5 The “direct object” in a sentence is the person or thing receiving the action of the verb. In the sentence, “Tom kicked the ball,” the direct object is “the ball,” which receives the action of the verb “kicked.” In Hebrew narrative, the particle eth is often written just before the direct object in a sentence, because Hebrew word order is flexible and does not always clearly indicate the direct object. Hebrew poetry often (not always) omits this particle, but in Genesis 1-2 it is found 40 times, including those instances in which the particle is incorporated as part of a persona...

You've got to be kidding me. The use of a direct object is an indication that it can't be an allegory?

Look, here's what I'm saying and what the debate has devolved to:

1. It is reasonable to assume some bronze-age sheepherders sitting around the fire in the Shephelah or wherever decided to tell a story about why the world was the way it was.

They rolled in oral stories they heard and they tried to better understand why things look the way they do or why they are the way they are.

Ask anyone over the age of 30 about "the good ol' days" and you see the standard human longing for a simpler, purer time. It's exploited in all manner of literature throughout human history. It's part of our psyche, regardless of religion.

Here's an example from the Iriquois indians in the U.S.

Long before the world was created there was an island, floating in the sky, upon which the Sky People lived. They lived quietly and happily. No one ever died or was born or experienced sadness. (SOURCE)

Here's an Australian aboriginal creation myth segment:

At first the children lived together peacefully, but eventually envy crept into their hearts. They began to argue. The Sun Mother was forced to come down from her home in the sky to mediate their bickering.(SOURCE)

So these Mediterranean ancients ginned up a "Just So Story", bearing many commonalities and many differences from standard creation mythologies. Maybe they even thought it was the way thing were. The key was they did it without actually knowing what happened.

Part of the Iriqouis Origins Mythology:
The water animals in the Iroquois creation myth save the Sky Woman from falling into the ocean that covered the Earth. After saving the Woman the animals built an island for her to live on. Without their help the Sky Woman may have perished and the human race never have existed. Iroquois Native Americans respected animals very much. They acknowledge how greatly they rely on animals to support their needs.
(SOURCE)

2. Inan made the blanket statement that the wording of Genesis did not fit with the definition of an allegory.

When I went looking for a definition that would bear this claim out I could find none. Allegory isn't defined by the "wording" but rather how the words can be interpretted.

Clearly the early parts of Genesis can be interpretted as allegorical for standard human issues, ignorance or underlying psychological needs or understandings.

After she made the claim I was desperately hoping she would provide just such a link as she finally posted in response to YOUR post.

Obviously I disagree with telus.net and I don't think telus.net makes a good claim that Genesis cannot be an allegory. They may be able to support, as you have, that the early authors or early Jews didn't interpret it as such, but in reality, we don't know what the original authors were thinking...because we don't know who they were.

Even if you "know" it was Adam, you don't know what he was up to.

But further, even an accidental allegory is more rational to assume. People, from a position of ignorance, tapped into their own psyches to come up with a story to help them understand why the world looks the way it does. It involves the animals around them and things they know and see.

But in the end the word allegory is not made inapporpriate because of the wording of Genesis.

That says nothing about whether it is allegory or not.

Actually I think anyone who reads it as literal (certainly for the Creation account) must then tell me why the Iriquois and Aborigine creation stories are clearly not true. When you've completed that task, tell me why the countless other creation myths are myths but yours isn't.

But that's a whole 'nother debate for a whole 'nother time.

I like arguments 2 and 5a.

Arg #2 The New Testament writers, as well as the other writers of the Old Testament, clearly understand Genesis (including chapters 1 and 2) as true history. (Italicized references below are from the New Testament.)

I don't care what they understood it to be.

I've driven through New Hampshire. Do you mind if I understand Nathaniel Hawthorne's story "The Great Carbuncle" to be "true"?

It would appear to have all the markings of a true story according to Telus.net:

1. Actual geographic locations
2. It uses "direct objects" occasionally. ("They spread their individual supplies of food on the flat surface of a rock" look! there! "supplies" is a direct object!)
3. I choose to understand it as a true story

So, now can we define "The Great Carbuncle" as a true story and clearly not an allegory? (Hint: this is a logic test. All dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs).

 

[AV1611VET]

I really don't care how people interpret Genesis at this point. I think it silly to cling to a literal Gensis, but if that's what floats yer boat, matey...

You would have to write a book on a day I go to a viewing.

 

[thaumaturgy]

So, your evidence is that you really, really, really believe it?

Isn't that ALWAYS the case for most literalists?

 

[FishFace]

It doesn't --- as my APPLE CHALLENGE shows:

• Something can exist --- even though there is no traceable evidence to support it.

And now you know why you're too smart to answer the challenge.

Woah woah woah, you never established that. You established that, if your apple existed, it would have no evidence for it. To establish the different point that something can exist without evidence, you actually have to show it's possible to create that apple.

You haven't.

 

[FishFace]

No kidding! What do you think my APPLE CHALLENGE is all about?

I cannot prove ex nihilo Creation of even a simple apple, and neither can anyone else.

Yet it happened.

Prove it.

Adam.

Prove it.

Moses.

Prove it

Not true.

Prove it.

Ultimately the Holy Spirit.

Prove it.

Ultimately the Holy Spirit.

Prove it.

No --- no --- but it doesn't matter if Genghis Khan translated it; the Holy Ghost superintended the work.

Prove it.

No --- that's what my APPLE CHALLENGE is all about.

We know. And that's why no-one listens to your ridiculous belief which has no evidence for it. When you understand why you reject the other creation myths, you might understand why we reject yours.

 

[FishFace]

How many times have you seen me post: "It looks old, because it is old?"

Tell me, how long has something existed, which is 100 years old? 100 years. So if the earth is 4.5 billion years old, it has existed for 4.5 billion years.

Stop trying to make up definitions, it's not clever and not useful.

 

[AV1611VET]

After a couple days worth of posts asking for her defense of her stance she finally posted something.

It would have been nice had she actually presented her understanding early on.

I will grant that this does represent someone's "take" on the wording.

Perhaps she prayed and asked God for guidance with her answer, and was awaiting the proper moment to respond.

My wife wisely tells me not to answer some of these posts so quickly; but to take it to the Lord in prayer first.

However, again, there is no indication that the word "allegory" does not include stories that include phrases like "these are the generations".

In all the instances I can think of in the Bible, the reader is alerted ahead of time that what he is about to read is a parable or an allegory.

Paul adds an ingredient [truth] to an allegory that makes it more than just fiction.

In describing the true stories of Hagar and Sarah, he adds this whopper of a statement:

[bible]Galatians 4:24[/bible]

Thus showing that an event can be both literal and allegorical.

In addition, in my studies of the parables of Jesus, Himself; I see no reason to believe that [most of] the things He talked about didn't literally come to pass.

People say the Bible is silent on Jesus' earlier years --- I question that.

 

[FishFace]

It's true --- whether I believe it or not.

[bible]John 17:17[/bible]

But you said faith is evidence. Well, hey, I guess I have faith that you'll turn into a rational person some day. Is that evidence?

 

[Blayz]

My wife wisely tells me not to answer some of these posts so quickly; but to take it to the Lord in prayer first.

Your wife tells you what to do? Doesn't sound like submission to me. How very unbiblical of you. That aside, I think you should take her advice. I recommend about 1 month of prayer before each post.

 

[AV1611VET]

So if the earth is 4.5 billion years old, it has existed for 4.5 billion years.

So you're saying the earth has gone around the sun 4.5 billion times?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Your wife tells you what to do? Doesn't sound like submission to me. How very unbiblical of you.

Oh snap!

[BIBLE]Ephesians 5:22[/BIBLE]

 

[thaumaturgy]

Perhaps she prayed and asked God for guidance with her answer, and was awaiting the proper moment to respond.

Uh, yeah. That's it! Or maybe God embedded the information in a post and it wasn't visible to me. I like that one better.

Now that I have a backstory to go along with it, I know how to move forward.

My wife wisely tells me not to answer some of these posts so quickly; but to take it to the Lord in prayer first.

And the Lord gives you advice like the "Ants in a Swimming Pool Example" and the "Apple Challenge"?

In all the instances I can think of in the Bible, the reader is alerted ahead of time that what he is about to read is a parable or an allegory.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Paul adds an ingredient [truth] to an allegory that makes it more than just fiction.

I don't think anyone provides an allegory as "just fiction". It is always provided to provide a deeper "truth" not necessarily requiring the "literal truth" of the story. To my understanding that's kinda what it's all about.

In addition, in my studies of the parables of Jesus, Himself; I see no reason to believe that [most of] the things He talked about didn't literally come to pass.

[BIBLE]Mark 4:2[/BIBLE]

Parable: A short, simple allegory with a moral or religious bent(SOURCE)

People say the Bible is silent on Jesus' earlier years --- I question that.

Nah, for that we have apocryphal childhood gospels that never made the cut to be considered "canonical". Like the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas".

 

[thaumaturgy]

You would have to write a book on a day I go to a viewing.

"Viewing"? as in "Visitation"? as in funeral? If so, Sorry to hear that!

My condolences.