Bible dateing methods

[Floodnut]

ok folkies lets discuss dateing shall we? according to the bible the earth was flooded about 5k years ago, noah died 25 years defore abraham was born,

scentist say the earth was flooded many millions of years ago,

in visiting caves there are flow stones and stags/tights that take many years to form more than 10,000 years for a simple drip to form a 10 foot stalagtite

so lets debate the flood sceince vs the bible dateing paradox.

The Flood occured in 1536 After Creation, which is about 4500 years ago. What scientists say is irrelevant to the infallible, absolute truth of God's Word. Scientists say the earth was the victim of multiple catyclysms, including one about 250 million years ago (sic) that is supposed to have destroyed 95% of life on earth. Another supposed destruction was about 65 million ybp (sic), the one that killed off the dinosaurs.

The only universal destruction that occured was the Flood, and there will be another universal destruction by fire a little over 1000 years from now.

 

[artybloke]

The Flood occured in 1536 After Creation, which is about 4500 years ago. What scientists say is irrelevant to the infallible, absolute truth of God's Word. Scientists say the earth was the victim of multiple catyclysms, including one about 250 million years ago (sic) that is supposed to have destroyed 95% of life on earth. Another supposed destruction was about 65 million ybp (sic), the one that killed off the dinosaurs.

The only universal destruction that occured was the Flood, and there will be another universal destruction by fire a little over 1000 years from now.

Then where is the evidence that it existed? There is none. I'm sorry, but belief in a literal flood in nothing short of childish nonsense.

 

[Smidlee]

I find it amazing those who cry againest the flood and even Noah's Ark has no problem in believe and defending evolution stories like "The little eyeball that could" nonsense. Some even defend wacky science like abiogenesis. To me it's a lot easier to believe Noah built the Ark out of toothpicks then the eyeball (let along all the complex parts of the eye) evolving naturally. With Behe explaining even the simplest eye is complex on a bio-chemistry level as well as finding a creature called a trilobrite in Cambrian layer with scientist admitted they had complex eyes, I got to wonder what would it take to falsify the "eyeball that could" story.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I find it amazing those who cry againest the flood and even Noah's Ark has no problem in believe and defending evolution stories like "The little eyeball that could" nonsense. Some even defend wacky science like abiogenesis. To me it's a lot easier to believe Noah built the Ark out of toothpicks then the eyeball (let along all the complex parts of the eye) evolving naturally. With Behe explaining even the simplest eye is complex on a bio-chemistry level as well as finding a creature called a trilobrite in Cambrian layer with scientist admitted they had complex eyes, I got to wonder what would it take to falsify the "eyeball that could" story.

there are a number of excellent sites to learn about how eyes can evolve

start with:
http://www.maayan.uk.com/evoeyes1.html
then look at the variety of eye types at:
http://soma.npa.uiuc.edu/courses/bio303/Ch11b.html
then check out the annotated links list at:
http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/EyeAWLS.html

what you begin to realize is how little you really know about eyes. nice study.

....

 

[Smidlee]

dp

 

[Smidlee]

there are a number of excellent sites to learn about how eyes can evolve

start with:
http://www.maayan.uk.com/evoeyes1.html
then look at the variety of eye types at:
http://soma.npa.uiuc.edu/courses/bio303/Ch11b.html
then check out the annotated links list at:
http://ebiomedia.com/gall/eyes/EyeAWLS.html

what you begin to realize is how little you really know about eyes. nice study.

....

Oh boy! there's those "the little eyeball that could" stories. (Of course this story was been update to sound more scientific but it the same old Darwin story) Nothing is impossible with evolution with it's supernatural -selection powers. I got to love Dawkins reply on the eye in Climbing Mount Improbable ...
Dawkin: Eye does look like design doesn't it?
yeap
D: But it's not; it just appears that way.
Hey, wait doesn't evolution uses appearance a lot as evidence especially in fossils?
D: Yeap , but that different , only we evolutionist know when appearances counts and when it doesn't. I have a PHD and believe in evolution so I'm qualify.
Oh . So all scientists believes in evolution because a scientist who disagree with evolution can't be a real scientist.

P.S. I agree I know little about the eye yet the little I do know and read about reveals to me just how complex it really is. The scientists are still learning more about the eye. Even according to Dawkin he believe it evolves atleast over 40 separated time with atleast 9 different types and amazingly it happen extreme fast. This sounds very super natural to me as well as Sci Fi more than Sci.

 

[Floodnut]

Then where is the evidence that it existed? There is none. I'm sorry, but belief in a literal flood in nothing short of childish nonsense.

If there was a worldwide flood we would expect to find millions and millions of dead things buried in flood deposited layers all over the world at all elevations. Until we start finding things like that then I will believe in the world wide flood with the childlike faith enjoined by Jesus Christ who himself affirmed the Flood as did Old John and Paul, and Peter the Fisherman. It happened, about 4500 years ago. To fail to believe in it is nothing short of arrogant impudence and rebellious unbelief, and constitues the idolatry spoken of by Paul in Romans 1, worshipping and serving the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever, Amen.

 

[mixin machine]

Then where is the evidence that it existed? There is none. I'm sorry, but belief in a literal flood in nothing short of childish nonsense.

If you can't believe in a literal flood then what is this scripture metaphorically speaking of?

Genesis 9:11
11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth

BTW my little brother's name is Noah Lot (and he's a bright young fella).
They were both were saved from destruction.

Andrew

 

[gluadys]

If you can't believe in a literal flood then what is this scripture metaphorically speaking of?

Genesis 9:11
11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth

BTW my little brother's name is Noah Lot (and he's a bright young fella).
They were both were saved from destruction.

Andrew

It is not speaking metaphorically. It is speaking mythically. Do you know the literary definition of myth?

 

[mixin machine]

It is not speaking metaphorically. It is speaking mythically. Do you know the literary definition of myth?

Of course I know the definition of a myth, the flood, right. What else in the bible is a myth? Is all the geneology a myth also? Did Noah even exsist?

 

[artybloke]

Of course I know the definition of a myth, the flood, right. What else in the bible is a myth? Is all the geneology a myth also? Did Noah even exsist?

The Bible is not all one type of literature.

A myth is a story about God or gods. It is not meant to be historical, it certainly has no basis in science. What else is myth? The creation stories. Abraham and Moses stories are more like legends: that is stories about people who may or may not have existed. There's a lot of legend in the OT; as well as some that is more properly called just "fiction" (Jonah, Ruth, Esther). A lot of the early "history" is basically legend.

Then there is poetry: Psalms, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, etc... The prophets were basically poets.

Then the New Testament, which is much more historical, alongside the later historical books of the OT. Then there are epistles, and apocalyptic. I've probably missed some literary forms out.

How do you tell which is which? By literary and comparative analysis, by refering to the contemporary literature of the surrounding like the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Code of Hammurabi for the legal codes.

In other words, you use the brain God gave you, and you don't put your own human interpretation of the Bible on a pedestal and start to worship it.

 

[Critias]

So you actually go and read the Hebrew of the OT and have studied how the Hebrews understood myths and poetry? And upon that you make your analysis, or do you just go by modern English?

 

[gluadys]

Of course I know the definition of a myth, the flood, right. What else in the bible is a myth? Is all the geneology a myth also? Did Noah even exsist?

You say you know the definition, but you do not say what the definition is. There are several different definitions of myth and not all of them apply in every case.

So what does it mean to you when someone says a biblical story is a myth?

Also I asked specifically if you know the literary definition of myth.

 

[mixin machine]

You say you know the definition, but you do not say what the definition is. There are several different definitions of myth and not all of them apply in every case.

So what does it mean to you when someone says a biblical story is a myth?

Also I asked specifically if you know the literary definition of myth.

Well I certainly know what you think about the word myth because you like to talk about it. All I wanted to know is specificlly about Gods promise to Noah.


"Myth" is a word that has many meanings outside of its literary meaning. If a person is not aware that in the field of literary criticism (aka analysis) myth has specific characteristics, they may think of myth in terms of these other meanings and that would be to miss the point.

It may be helpful to the discussion for you to set out what you see as the principal characteristics of myth. They are probably not the same as the literary characteristics.

Literary genres do not exist in watertight compartments and often overlap with similar genres. Myth tends to overlap with both legend and fable. The chief difference between these genres is the principal character. In fables, the principal characters, often the only characters, are animals. I can't recall an example of pure fable in the bible, but we do have stories that feature talking animal characters in the story of Balaam's donkey and in the story of the Fall. In legend the principal characters are humans, though the humans may have divine origins (Hercules) and/or super-human qualities (Paul Bunyan). Legends grow quickly around any especially charismatic person even today (Elvis Presley). Almost all we know of the great OT figures such as Abraham, Moses or David is legend, some of which may also be history. In myth the principal characters are deities or a deity. Other characters are seen in their relation to the deities or deity who is the central character of the myth.

I don't want to make this post too long. Let's begin with the principle that when speaking of myth in the bible it is important to establish what myth is and how it can be identified.

So, when speaking of myth in the bible, we are speaking of a literary genre identified by specific characteristics. Other meanings of myth in the dictionary or in popular speech should be set aside. They are not relevant.

One characteristic of a myth is that the central character is God (or in polytheistic cultures, gods

 

[gluadys]

Well I certainly know what you think about the word myth because you like to talk about it. All I wanted to know is specificlly about Gods promise to Noah.

You are still evading the question. You still have not given your definition of myth.

Here is your first post in this thread:

If you can't believe in a literal flood then what is this scripture metaphorically speaking of?

Genesis 9:11
11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.​

Now I don't think anyone denies that there could have been a literal flood--a large disastrous flood that destroyed most of the world Noah (or whoever) knew.

What is at issue is that this flood was literally global. As a global event the flood has to be a myth, though it could be built on the experience of an actual, literal, historical flood that was not global.

Now, what does it mean to you to think of a global flood being a myth? What are the implications? How do you think it would affect the way a person would understand the verse you cited above?

 

[mixin machine]

Genesis 9:11

11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
​

What is at issue is that this flood was literally global. As a global event the flood has to be a myth, though it could be built on the experience of an actual, literal, historical flood that was not global.


I have never in my life been presented with absolute 100% irrefutable proof that a flood as a global event has to be a myth.


Now, what does it mean to you to think of a global flood being a myth? What are the implications? How do you think it would affect the way a person would understand the verse you cited above?

For me, thinking of a global flood as being a myth says that the writer of genesis enjoys telling tall tales. So then at what point in the genesis account does the creative writing start and the gospel truth end?

Andrew

 

[artybloke]

For me, thinking of a global flood as being a myth says that the writer of genesis enjoys telling tall tales. So then at what point in the genesis account does the creative writing start and the gospel truth end?

Andrew

What's wrong with that? I enjoy telling tall tales too. I'm a poet. But I also salt my "tall tales" with truth about human relationships, the world around me and even spiritual truth. At least, as far as I see that truth; I'm not infallible.

There is no point where the creative writing starts and the gospel truth ends, because as in all creative writing the two are mixed up inextricably together. Even the form of the writing (a radically simplified myth in Chap 1 and a sort of legend/fable in Chap 2) makes a comment on the truth that is being conveyed.

I think you operate with the modernist/positivist assumption that "truth" = "fact". While all facts are true, not all truth can be observed and verified by natural means: truths about God can only be recieved by discernment of the spirit. You can't prove the existence of God by scientific means, for instance; and you can't prove creation by God using science.

This doesn't mean that all the history of the Bible is false: when God enters history in the life of Jesus Christ, there are certain essential places where "truth" and "fact" have to coincide. But you can't prove that Jesus is the Son of God scientifically either; that has to be discerned by faith.

There are very deep truths in the Genesis account that seem to me to get buried in a "literalistic" interpretation. They are not truths that science can tell us, they are spiritual truths about our relationship with the divine, with the earth God made, with each other.

Some people spend so much time straining at gnats they let the camels go through without looking.

 

[gluadys]

For me, thinking of a global flood as being a myth says that the writer of genesis enjoys telling tall tales. So then at what point in the genesis account does the creative writing start and the gospel truth end?

Andrew

So to you, myth means that truth ends?

I can understand then why you take offence if someone refers to these stories as myth.

I do not agree that myth means the end of truth. That is only one definition of myth. Other definitions of myth are consistent with myth being true.

myth (mth)
n.
1.
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.


You might consider this comment by Madeleine l'Engle on the occasion of a reprint of some of her books:

What a delight it is to see these beautiful new covers for the Time Quartet. It is another indication that stories have a life of their own and that they say different things to different people at different times. And it is an affirmation that story is true and takes us beyond the facts into something more real.​

Bolding added.

Story, IMO, is a wonderful way for God to preserve truth, especially among illiterate people. For facts are dull and hard to remember, but people never get tired of telling and retelling stories. Hence, enshrining great truth in a mythical story is a way of ensuring that it will be retold and remembered generation to generation.

 

[Micaiah]

To me it's a lot easier to believe Noah built the Ark out of toothpicks then the eyeball (let along all the complex parts of the eye) evolving naturally.

I like it.

 

[Micaiah]

So to you, myth means that truth ends?

I can understand then why you take offence if someone refers to these stories as myth.

I do not agree that myth means the end of truth. That is only one definition of myth. Other definitions of myth are consistent with myth being true.

myth (mth)
n.
1.
a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
b. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.


You might consider this comment by Madeleine l'Engle on the occasion of a reprint of some of her books:

What a delight it is to see these beautiful new covers for the Time Quartet. It is another indication that stories have a life of their own and that they say different things to different people at different times. And it is an affirmation that story is true and takes us beyond the facts into something more real.​

Bolding added.


Story, IMO, is a wonderful way for God to preserve truth, especially among illiterate people. For facts are dull and hard to remember, but people never get tired of telling and retelling stories. Hence, enshrining great truth in a mythical story is a way of ensuring that it will be retold and remembered generation to generation.

I find it ironical that you should be challenging people to define myth when you had so much trouble yourself.