Climbing Mount BIAS!

[vossler]

Here's a short transcript I came across from Creation Moments. Quite fascinating for those with an open mind toward the flood.

http://www.creationmoments.net/radio/transcript.php?t=298

Today it is considered scholarly to reject the Bible's account of a worldwide flood. Some try to compromise by saying that the flood recorded in the Bible was only a local event. The problem with these scholarly claims is that there were too many witnesses who disagree with them.

We can test these scholars' claims. If the Bible's account of a worldwide flood is true, it was witnessed by every person on earth. The story of this event would have been passed down to their descendants and spread across the whole face of the earth.

Researchers have catalogued some 270 stories of an ancient destructive flood in various cultures around the world. A large majority of these stories have been shown to predate any Christian influence. As one would expect, details differ after such a long time. What's remarkable, though, is that where the details of these stories agree with the Bible, they also tend to agree with each other. For example, the ancient Greek flood hero was told to build and stock an ark because the god Zeus wished to destroy humanity. The Aztec story of a universal flood says it took place 1,716 years after the creation of the world - almost the same as the Bible's date! The Babylonian flood story shares seven major details with the Bible's account. Similar stories are found around the world, including Australia, India, Scandinavia and China.

The universality of the flood stories and their similarity to the Bible cannot be explained unless they are based on an event that actually took place.

 

[KerrMetric]

Actually the thing about Flood myths is they differ drastically all over the world. The similarity usually ends with the concept of water. The oft quoted similarities to the Biblical one is basically urban legend.

Also - in cultures from radically different places like deserts and ice areas such myths tend not to occur.

 

[XTE]

Isn't it amazing, Christians dissecting the words stealing and lying, ready to argue what it is or isn't. Wow!

And some of us still think that issues like creation are doable.

Is it any wonder why our witness is hurt.

Yeah, I guess it was amazing what you two were talking about....

Thanks for bringing that up.

I had a point there, nice diversion!

 

[steen]

Here's a short transcript I came across from Creation Moments. Quite fascinating for those with an open mind toward the flood.

http://www.creationmoments.net/radio/transcript.php?t=298

Today it is considered scholarly to reject the Bible's account of a worldwide flood. Some try to compromise by saying that the flood recorded in the Bible was only a local event. The problem with these scholarly claims is that there were too many witnesses who disagree with them.

We can test these scholars' claims. If the Bible's account of a worldwide flood is true, it was witnessed by every person on earth. The story of this event would have been passed down to their descendants and spread across the whole face of the earth.

I would suggest that the person making that claim is a bit daft. Lets look at it. The Bible said that Noah and his family survived and everybody else died. So what "descendants are we talking about? the descendants of all the people who died after witnessing these floods in their local regions?

Me think these people's logic meter was broken that day.

Researchers have catalogued some 270 stories of an ancient destructive flood in various cultures around the world. A large majority of these stories have been shown to predate any Christian influence. As one would expect, details differ after such a long time.

yes, I especially like this one:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Kootenay
....A small gray bird, despite the prohibition of her husband (a chicken hawk, Accipiter cooperi), bathed in a certain lake after picking berries in the hot sun. There she was seized and raped by a giant in the lake. The bird's husband shot the monster, who in revenge swallowed up all the water to keep others from having it. The woman pulled out the arrow, and the water rushed forth in a torrent. The husband and wife escaped to a mountain until the flood receded. (In variant versions, the woman was seized by a giant fish or water animal. The husband killed it, and its blood caused the flood. The husband escaped up a tree.) [Kelsen, pp. 147-148; Frazer, p. 323]...

Now, perhaps Noah didn't know that all the water came from the belly of the monster?

What's remarkable, though, is that where the details of these stories agree with the Bible, they also tend to agree with each other.

Hmm, I must have some kind of reading deficiency, because I really don't see anything in the Kootenay myth that resembles the Biblical story of a flood? No ark, no animals, no warning from God, no promise of never flooding the world again. There really is no resemblance. Perhaps the flood didn't get to British Columbia?

Perhaps I am just looking at the wrong one? perhaps this is the one exception. So lets look at another one
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Manger
...Crow got into an argument with two other men because he accidentally let green ants contaminate their fish. They took back their fish, and Crow took back the goose eggs he had brought. They fought. Crow defeated them and left saying they'd fight again. Crow went to his mother's tribe. When the other two men appeared, the tribe put on a ceremony rather than quarrelling more. When everyone else had fallen asleep, Crow climbed a tree and chopped off a branch, which fell and killed the two men. Then he poured out a bag of honey which came down so heavily it flooded the area. All the people turned into birds. [Berndt & Berndt, pp. 185-187]...

Hmm, same problem. All these things are missing from the story. perhaps the worldwide flood also didn't quite make it to Australia?

How about India, it is closer, after all:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Tamil
...Half of the land mass Kumari Kandam, which was south of India, sank in a great flood, destroying the first Tamil Sangam (literary academy). The people moved to the other half and established the second Tamil Sangam there, but the rest of Kumari too sank beneath the sea. The lone survivor was a Tamil prince named Thirumaaran, who managed to rescue some Tamil literary classics and swim with them to present-day Tamil Nadu. [Sundar Narayan, personal communication, citing Appadurai; see also Adigal, p. 70 (11:20-21)]...

Eeeeh, no not really. It really can't be reconciled with the Biblical flood myth either. So not British Columbia, not Australia, not Southern India. Where exactly did this flood go, that you say is so consistent in all these flood myths? There really isn't much left of the world now. Oh, wait, I forgot Africa. Right next door and all. perhaps THERE, we will find this flood myth that so closely resemble the Bible:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#LowerCongo
...The sun once met the moon and threw mud at it, making it dimmer. There was a flood when this happened. Men put their milk stick behind them and were turned into monkeys. The present race of men is a recent creation. [Fauconnet, p. 481; Kelsen, p. 136]...

Arw, shucks. This really doesn't fit well either. But at least, here are donkeys, animals. That's a start, isn't it?

Well, frankly no, it isn't. These have nothing to do with the Biblical flood myth.

But maybe I am to far from home. Lets look at my ancestral lands:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Scandinavian
...Oden, Vili, and Ve fought and slew the great ice giant Ymir, and icy water from his wounds drowned most of the Rime Giants. The giant Bergelmir escaped, with his wife and children, on a boat made from a hollowed tree trunk. From them rose the race of frost ogres. Ymir's body became the world we live on. His blood became the oceans. [Sturluson, p. 35]...

Well, here is a boat at least. Are we getting closer? It also talks about different species, but also about the origin of land. It seems more a creation myth than a unique flood myth.

So it really didn't get to Scandinavia either.

Frankly, there isn't much left of the world for this worldwide flood to have gotten to and provide these stories that are so close to the biblical story,. and which apparently was passed down by the ancestors who according to the Bible were all drowned and thus shouldn't be ancestors to anything.

For example, the ancient Greek flood hero was told to build and stock an ark because the god Zeus wished to destroy humanity. The Aztec story of a universal flood says it took place 1,716 years after the creation of the world - almost the same as the Bible's date! The Babylonian flood story shares seven major details with the Bible's account.

Well, isn't the Babylonian story of Gilgamesh where the Biblical story was borrowed from anyway? So it better have some resemblance.

Similar stories are found around the world, including Australia, India, Scandinavia and China.

Well, the ones I found from Australia, India and Scandinavia sure don't seem to fit your claim. Perhaps I should have looked at China?

nah, it frankly is getting pointless to find yet ANOTHER flood myth that doesn't resemble the Biblical flood myth. We are done here.

The universality of the flood stories and their similarity to the Bible cannot be explained unless they are based on an event that actually took place.

Well, for one, that universality obviously doesn't exist, so right there your argument is sunk. Secondly, "It must have happened this way because I can't imagine that it didn't," that really isn't evidence. It is way to similar to the "Intelligent Design" crowd's types of "evidence."

 

[laptoppop]

There are hundreds of flood myths in various early civilizations. Many are similar to the Word of God, others are not. Cherry picking a few that are not shows nothing. It is also not appropriate to put too much credence in ancient myths. However, the large number does demonstrate a commonality that is unusual.
-lee-

 

[steen]

There are hundreds of flood myths in various early civilizations. Many are similar to the Word of God, others are not. Cherry picking a few that are not shows nothing. It is also not appropriate to put too much credence in ancient myths.

So you strongly disagree with Vossler. That's fine.

However, the large number does demonstrate a commonality that is unusual.
-lee-

Why? Everybody living on a flood plain will, at some point experience a flood of that local area, after all. That is about as amazing as Eskimos noting snow.

 

[vossler]

I would suggest that the person making that claim is a bit daft. Lets look at it. The Bible said that Noah and his family survived and everybody else died. So what "descendants are we talking about? the descendants of all the people who died after witnessing these floods in their local regions?

Me think these people's logic meter was broken that day.

I think I did say one needed an open mind...I don't know, given this response maybe that's just not possible.

 

[laptoppop]

So you strongly disagree with Vossler. That's fine.

No, not at all. We both would say the number and agreement of ancient universal flood stories are an interesting support to the truth of the Word of God. Picking a few counter examples shows nothing.
-lee-

 

[laptoppop]

Tons of flood stories. Heres just a couple of URLs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

Many people who do not see the Bible as historically accurate in this area say that the Genesis flood story actually came from the Babylonian story -- because of the similarities.
-lee-

 

[chaoschristian]

Researchers have catalogued some 270 stories of an ancient destructive flood in various cultures around the world. A large majority of these stories have been shown to predate any Christian influence. As one would expect, details differ after such a long time. What's remarkable, though, is that where the details of these stories agree with the Bible, they also tend to agree with each other. For example, the ancient Greek flood hero was told to build and stock an ark because the god Zeus wished to destroy humanity. The Aztec story of a universal flood says it took place 1,716 years after the creation of the world - almost the same as the Bible's date! The Babylonian flood story shares seven major details with the Bible's account. Similar stories are found around the world, including Australia, India, Scandinavia and China.

The universality of the flood stories and their similarity to the Bible cannot be explained unless they are based on an event that actually took place.

Vossler, let me ask you this, since I don't want to speak your position for you:

Does the account agree with scripture?

Or, does scripture agree with the account?

 

[theFijian]

If the Bible's account of a worldwide flood is true, it was witnessed by every person on earth. The story of this event would have been passed down to their descendants and spread across the whole face of the earth.

Is this a joke? I thought everyone who wasn't on the Ark died? Who was left to pass on any eye-witness accounts to their descendants? Ironically there would only have been other eye-witnesses if the flood hadn't been worldwide. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Assyrian]

The fact that I think is also extra biblical, how reliable is that? Not very!

OK Good. Now you should realise we are not dealing with a conflict between human science and the Word of God, but between human science and a human hermeneutic interpreting the word of God. If there is a conflict, we need to examine both.

Again, this just further illustrates my point, no one knows what stealing is, lying or anything else for that matter because we all have our 'interpretations.' How convenient!

I don't think anyone here is advocating lying or stealing, or looking for excuses to justify their behaviour. The point is we need to think deeply about the meaning of scripture, even apparently simple ones like 'thou shalt not steal' or 'do not lie'.

Here you make sense, I'll go with that.

I'm certainly not advocating that people not read the Bible for themselves.

Not when used with a ordinal number and evening and morning.

Again another man made rule that doesn't have anything to do with Hebrew grammar or syntax. Day can be used figuratively, so can numbers or evening and morning. What is to say they can't be used together figuratively?

Besides there are no ordinal numbers or evening and morning in the Exodus passages we looked at.

So are you saying that God couldn't be literal and metaphoric at the same time?

Of course he could. Your problem is that the only two verses in the whole bible that talk about creating the world in six days are right in the middle of a metaphor. There is nothing to suggest they were literal.

True, it was for our benefit.

And it was for the Israelites benefit he described his creation in terms of a human working week. But this was part of his weary labourer metaphor. I think it is amazing that God would identify himself with us in this way, but we must remember it was a metaphor.

It's not my six day creation, its God's

Yours is the literal six days version But you get your literal six days from the middle of a metaphor.

and He didn't give us any indication that it was metaphorical.

I have already shown you why. God used an anthropomorphism to illustrate the same commandment in Deuteronomy and if the take the Exodus versions literally we end up with a God who gets tired. The description is metaphorical.

I don't see Psalm 90:4 in any way shape or form as you are using it.

We have Moses starting off with the creation of the world and then goes on to tell us God's view of days is very different from ours. He then goes on to use evening and morning metaphorically.

I believe that this says exactly that, the whole planet was flooded.

And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.

Like I've tried to say, we can take the simple and make it so complex, it's a wonder we believe anything at all.

Your problem here is you are reading the passage as if it was written to modern man. It was a description of a neolithic event written by neolithic people in neolithic terms. The whole heaven meant the sky above them. This is a description of the land from horizon to horizon, not of the whole globe inside the planet's atmosphere.

Have a look at how the phrase is used elsewhere in scripture (scripture interprets scripture)
Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.'

Yet when we read the account, the peoples who were under the whole heaven basically referred to the nations in and around Canaan, not the whole world.

Isaiah 13:5 They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens, the LORD and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.

Interestingly, these people from the end of the heavens were going to destroy the whole erets, the whole earth as it is translated in Gen 7:3 & 8:9. But in fact the whole erets just mean the kingdom of Babylon (Mesopotamia interestingly enough), and the people from the end of the heavens were the Medes from down the road Persia.

It is not that the bible is wrong. We need to understand what the words and phrases meant to the people who used them. It doesn't matter if it was God who spoke them directly, God was speaking to them in their language and we need to understand what that meant, not try to interpret it from our very different perspective.

 

[shernren]

... an important thing to remember is that many approaches to truth have both methdological and philosophical (or epistemological) levels. In simpler words many approaches to how we know the world have two levels: a practical one which says that "many things in the world can be described in this way", and a philosophical one which says that "the world IS this way". We have already seen how a confusion between methodological and philosophical naturalism can cloud the discussion of origins many times. I think this thread shows what happens when we don't clearly define the border between methodological and philosophical relativism.

Is the Bible truth? Yes.
Does it have a single, valid interpretation? Yes.
Can we be completely sure that our interpretation is identical to that single, valid interpretation? No.

That is all that methodological relativism says: that there is the possibility that my interpretation was not the right one, that what I think the Bible is saying is not in fact what the Bible is saying. Methodological relativism separates the truth of a human interpretation of the Bible from the truth of the Bible itself: the Bible can be true while my interpretation is false. Clearly this is a very important contribution to Christianity. The reason why the falsity of geocentrism is not a threat to the truth of Christianity is that it is possible for the interpretation (the Bible supports geocentrism) to be false while the text (Bible) itself is true.

How do we know that the geocentrist interpretation of the Bible is false? Not from the Bible itself. But from external evidence. This is an important point: where two or more interpretations conflict, text alone may be insufficient evidence to conclusively demonstrate which is right.

Situations arise where there is insufficient evidence from either text or context (both textual and not) to determine the proper interpretation of the Bible. Consider what is happening in the "Hovind arrested" thread, besides the polemic what we have is essentially a conflict over the interpretation of the Bible's position on man-made laws. One person says that Hovind shouldn't be considered wrong for breaking man-made laws while doing his God-given work, particularly senseless laws. Another quotes Romans and Jesus' examples of "render unto Caesar" and considers it fair for Hovind to take the punishment. Whose interpretation is right? Whose is wrong? I don't know. Is that really a severe denial of my faith? I don't think so.

Note that I say that I don't know which is right or wrong, not that neither is right or wrong. When I lead Bible study in my youth, I make it a point to avoid saying "There's no right or wrong answer to this." Of course there is! One of these interpretations is right, and one is wrong. We just don't know which, yet.

So in answer to your question:

So are you saying that you are one who believes we all can have our own interpretation of the Bible?

I can't speak for gluadys, but to me:

Yes we all can have our interpretation of the Bible: while approaching the true interpretation of the Bible in relevance to issues in today's society, and humbly acknowledging that our interpretation will probably never be equivalent to the Bible in validity this side of heaven.

In any case, this does not preclude the fact that we can know for sure that certain interpretations are wrong. Interpretations only have equal claims to validity where there is insufficient evidence to distinguish between them. Where there is sufficient evidence, as between geocentrism and heliocentrism, we can say with certainty that an interpretation is invalid.

 

[theFijian]

I understand this fully, I think the misunderstanding, if it truly exists, is the means to how we come to our science. Is it observation solely or extrapolation? I believe in the former while evolutionists believe in the latter.

Scientific data is gathered by observation. A Scientific hypothesis is based on extrapolation based on those observations, a scientific theory is formed from on the basis of observations from testing scientific hypothesis. Hope this helps your misunderstanding.

Consider me funny, but I believe if the Bible states something I'm allowed to speak on it with authority.

Not really funny, you're changing your story. You said you were disagreeing with a thread which dealt purely with practical real-world applications of evolutionary biology, now you are trying to claim you were disagreeing with something which dealt with a theological position.

Of course you're more than welcome to justify your beliefs, I have nothing against this at all. I have no ability or power to deny you or anyone else here of anything.

Good! Because you would be warring against the Holy Spirit if you were to deny me my right to interpret the scriptures for myself. What is wrong is that you believe you simply don't hold to an interpretation but think that scripture is parsed directly into your brain. We all have an interpretive framework wether you like it or not. Yours is shaped by the post-enlightenment rationalist modernist society you live in. To deny that would simply be dishonesty, we are all shaped by the society and culture we are a part of to differing extents.

Do you believe in six days? If not they contradict.

Final proof if more were needed that you still do not get it. A literal intepretation is just that...an interpretation. As per you sig we see that Gen 1 is poetic from the context, therefore there is no need to be strict on a literal 6-day interpretation. Creationists hang themselves with their own rope on this point, if Gen 1 must be read literally then there are contradictions between Gen 1 and Gen 2. How do Creationists get round this? They interpret away the 'apparent' contradiction. More Creationists double-standards.

You have turned Roman Catholic. Why does your interpretation carry no weight? Are you expecting someone else's beliefs to get you into heaven? How can we possibly go to heaven unless we accept Christ for ourselves...(ie we assess the truth claims of scripture for ourselves)

Is that what I am, Catholic? The things you learn here in OT.

Why dont' you address the point instead of being facetious? It just makes you look like you have no answers or don't want to answer. Why bother participating?

I've never said my assessment of the truth carries no weight.

Then why do you have a problem with other people having their own assessment of the truth? Just because it's not yours or may not be the same as yours? Try to get them to agree with yours if you like but don't think that they don't have the right to hold their own view.

 

[vossler]

Is the Bible truth? Yes.
Does it have a single, valid interpretation? Yes.
Can we be completely sure that our interpretation is identical to that single, valid interpretation? No.

I agree completely!

That is all that methodological relativism says: that there is the possibility that my interpretation was not the right one, that what I think the Bible is saying is not in fact what the Bible is saying. Methodological relativism separates the truth of a human interpretation of the Bible from the truth of the Bible itself: the Bible can be true while my interpretation is false. Clearly this is a very important contribution to Christianity. The reason why the falsity of geocentrism is not a threat to the truth of Christianity is that it is possible for the interpretation (the Bible supports geocentrism) to be false while the text (Bible) itself is true.

I don't have an issue with anything here. This was well said, especially for the technical crowd we've got here.

How do we know that the geocentrist interpretation of the Bible is false? Not from the Bible itself. But from external evidence. This is an important point: where two or more interpretations conflict, text alone may be insufficient evidence to conclusively demonstrate which is right.

Again, I agree. The only point I would make here is that the heliocentrist interpretation didn't conflict with the Bible either.

Note that I say that I don't know which is right or wrong, not that neither is right or wrong. When I lead Bible study in my youth, I make it a point to avoid saying "There's no right or wrong answer to this." Of course there is! One of these interpretations is right, and one is wrong. We just don't know which, yet.

Sounds good, but I hope that last sentence isn't one you use a lot.

Yes we all can have our interpretation of the Bible: while approaching the true interpretation of the Bible in relevance to issues in today's society, and humbly acknowledging that our interpretation will probably never be equivalent to the Bible in validity this side of heaven.

You won't get a disagreement from me here except to say that what ever that interpretation is, if it can't be supported with other Scripture then more than likely it is incorrect.

In any case, this does not preclude the fact that we can know for sure that certain interpretations are wrong. Interpretations only have equal claims to validity where there is insufficient evidence to distinguish between them. Where there is sufficient evidence, as between geocentrism and heliocentrism, we can say with certainty that an interpretation is invalid.

Again I agree with the same caveat as above and my continuous point that whatever our interpretation, it cannot conflict with Scripture.

 

[vossler]

We all have an interpretive framework whether you like it or not. Yours is shaped by the post-enlightenment rationalist modernist society you live in.

If so, then so is yours.

Final proof if more were needed that you still do not get it. A literal intepretation is just that...an interpretation. As per you sig we see that Gen 1 is poetic from the context, therefore there is no need to be strict on a literal 6-day interpretation.

It is an interpretation based upon a lot of factors, the primary one being Scripture itself. The thing is all of my interpretations of Scripture can be supported by Scripture, if not I want people to point that out. My problem comes from people claiming their 'interpretation' is equal to mine when it has no biblical basis. When we say that is o.k. that's when we all become our own gods.

Creationists hang themselves with their own rope on this point, if Gen 1 must be read literally then there are contradictions between Gen 1 and Gen 2. How do Creationists get round this? They interpret away the 'apparent' contradiction. More Creationists double-standards.

No, Genesis 1 and 2 tell the same story from different perspectives and, I believe, most people have no trouble understanding that.

Why dont' you address the point instead of being facetious? It just makes you look like you have no answers or don't want to answer. Why bother participating?

When people try to classify you into a category that they already know that you don't belong to, I'm not to interested in following up on the point they're trying to make.

Then why do you have a problem with other people having their own assessment of the truth? Just because it's not yours or may not be the same as yours? Try to get them to agree with yours if you like but don't think that they don't have the right to hold their own view.

Again, my problem comes in only when 'interpretations' have little to no basis on Scripture. This is why I repeatedly will say we can all have our interpretations and be our own gods.

 

[gluadys]

... an important thing to remember is that many approaches to truth have both methdological and philosophical (or epistemological) levels.

snip

In any case, this does not preclude the fact that we can know for sure that certain interpretations are wrong. Interpretations only have equal claims to validity where there is insufficient evidence to distinguish between them. Where there is sufficient evidence, as between geocentrism and heliocentrism, we can say with certainty that an interpretation is invalid.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to shernren again.

The only thing I would quibble with is this:

Is the Bible truth? Yes.
Does it have a single, valid interpretation? Yes.

Medieval interpreters normally sought out four valid interpretations: literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical.

I think that what you mean is that there is only one valid literal interpretation. E.g in geocentrism vs. heliocentrism only one can be right. (Ditto with historical events: Jesus was either crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate or he was not.)

That does not preclude the validity of the allegorical, anagogical and moral interpretations medievalists would have drawn from the scriptures which apparently support geocentrism.

Poetical work such as the Song of Solomon is commonly intended to be open to multiple valid interpretations, none of which need to be literal.

 

[gluadys]

The thing is all of my interpretations of Scripture can be supported by Scripture, if not I want people to point that out.

Your interpretation of the six days of Genesis is not supported by Scripture, but by a fallible human standard of literal interpretation. There is nothing in Scripture which tells us that the passage must be interpreted literally or otherwise. Most non-literalists would be of the opinion that you are ignoring cues which suggest that the literal interpretation is not appropriate. Just as you suggest that non-literalists are ignoring cues which suggest the literal interpretation is appropriate. But there is insufficient evidence in scripture to decide who is correct.

There is sufficient evidence in creation to conclude that a literal interpretation is not appropriate in this case. Why should we ignore that any more than we ignore the evidence for heliocentrism?

 

[johnd]

Mount Bias, that is...

 

[vossler]

Your interpretation of the six days of Genesis is not supported by Scripture, but by a fallible human standard of literal interpretation.

The only word that comes to mind is, Wow! I mean Wow! No really Wow!