Dinosaurs on the Ark?

[Eryk]

Like connected Jesus to the heroes of Israelite allegory to make a point about the power of Jesus. Jesus and His resurrection can and are very real, even if Luke's genealogy is embellished.

They were heroes, just like this hero. Fictional heroes, just like this fictional hero. Embellished story, just like this story. I mean, these writers liked to make things up, according to your theory. They turn into literalists when they get to the resurrection, the most incredible chapter in the story? Do you see how this stuff is a Kick Me sign for atheists? The Flood is rejected as scientifically impossible, but bodily resurrection is accepted. Your whole thesis is a mess.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

They were heroes, just like this hero. Fictional heroes, just like this fictional hero. Embellished story, just like this story. I mean, these writers liked to make things up, according to your theory. They turn into literalists when they get to the resurrection, the most incredible chapter in the story? Do you see how this stuff is a Kick Me sign for atheists? The Flood is rejected as scientifically impossible, but bodily resurrection is accepted. Your whole thesis is a mess.

It's a mess to you because you do not understand what I am saying. But that is fine. I am comfortable in my faith in the resurrection and the saving power of Jesus.

I will just respond to a few of your points:
1) By definition, and allegory is a story that teaches a true lesson. This is different from "fiction" or "legend" as you like to put it.

2) I take both the creation story and the flood story as allegory - stories that are not literally true as told in the Bible but still teach valuable lessons about God and our relationship with Him.

3) I believe that science is a gift from God. He has allowed us to understand His creation. This understanding has pointed us toward an allegorical interpretation of Genesis.

4) There is no such contradictory evidence regarding Jesus. In fact, there is confirmatory evidence from the writings of people who were his contemporaries or lived shortly after the resurrection. Based on faith and this evidence I believe in the teachings, resurrection, and salvation.

Where do you imagine this "kick me sign" comes from? Allegorical interpreters who see the Bible as compatible with visible evidence, or literalists who insist that what we see is false and what we read in the Bible is true?

You can believe as you want, I will believe as I feel is right and acceptable to God. In the end, I feel both are paths to salvation since all that is required for salvation is a belief in Jesus as our savior.

 

[Eryk]

1) By definition, and allegory is a story that teaches a true lesson. This is different from "fiction" or "legend" as you like to put it.

If Luke "embellished" (your term) the genealogy of Jesus, he is an unreliable narrator and the story is unreliable history. There would be no problem if the whole thing is fiction writing, because everyone likes a good yarn. But the story of Jesus has to be existentially real to have an effect on real people. A story we imagine will not raise us from our graves when our brains are dead. It could be the most beautiful, insprirational story ever told, and be nothing but a pious fiction we tell ourselves to get through the day. Some things have to be literally true. We must have confidence in the veracity of the text.

The story of Noah is one of those things, because Jesus plainly believed it was literally true and he applied this story to the future - not a future that takes place in fiction, but a real, terrible future for most of humanity (Luke 17). We are not in the domain of poetry or esoterica when we are talking about Noah. Nor was this a story about a local event that grew in the telling. We must appreciate the immensity of that cataclysm to fear God and to know that he saves us from the coming wrath on the whole world.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

If Luke "embellished" (your term) the genealogy of Jesus, he is an unreliable narrator and the story is unreliable history. There would be no problem if the whole thing is fiction writing, because everyone likes a good yarn. But the story of Jesus has to be existentially real to have an effect on real people. A story we imagine will not raise us from our graves when our brains are dead. It could be the most beautiful, insprirational story ever told, and be nothing but a pious fiction we tell ourselves to get through the day. Some things have to be literally true. We must have confidence in the veracity of the text.

The story of Noah is one of those things, because Jesus plainly believed it was literally true and he applied this story to the future - not a future that takes place in fiction, but a real, terrible future for most of humanity (Luke 17). We are not in the domain of poetry or esoterica when we are talking about Noah. Nor was this a story about a local event that grew in the telling. We must appreciate the immensity of that cataclysm to fear God and to know that he saves us from the coming wrath on the whole world.

Then how do you explain the discrepancies between the two genealogies?

Also, I am fine with Luke and Matthew embellishing bits of the story, particularly those bits of which they could not reasonably expect to have knowledge (like the genealogy). However, the parts that they agree on - they teachings of Jesus, for example - are far more powerful and important.

I realize that Jesus referred to the flood. This is because it was an allegorical story known to his listeners. He used it to teach lessons.

I have used this example in another thread:
If I said, "Hey, remember that time when Captain America, Iron Man, the Hulk, Thor, Black Widow, and Hawkeye fought the Chitauri in the Battle of New York?" would you assume that I thought that the Avengers are real? I should hope not.

 

[Eryk]

Then how do you explain the discrepancies between the two genealogies?

Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

If I said, "Hey, remember that time when Captain America, Iron Man, the Hulk, Thor, Black Widow, and Hawkeye fought the Chitauri in the Battle of New York?" would you assume that I thought that the Avengers are real? I should hope not.

If you tell a story to warn people, it has to be a true story. "Hulk will smash you" sounds silly. "As in the days of Noah" is a silly warning if the Noah story is not true.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

As with most efforts to make obvious inconsistencies appear consistent with a literal interpretation, this article does some interesting calisthenics to make the genealogies compatible. And, while I do not doubt that genealogical history was of paramount importance for the ruling class, I have my doubts that such meticulous records were kept by peasants such as Joseph's family.

If you tell a story to warn people, it has to be a true story. "Hulk will smash you" sounds silly. "As in the days of Noah" is a silly warning if the Noah story is not true.

Again, I disagree. An allegory is a story meant to teach a true lesson. Therefore, referring to an allegorical story such as Noah to teach a lesson (or warn the listeners) is not silly at all. It is entirely appropriate if it is an allegorical story with which the audience is familiar.

 

[Speedwell]

Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

If you tell a story to warn people, it has to be a true story. "Hulk will smash you" sounds silly. "As in the days of Noah" is a silly warning if the Noah story is not true.

How true does it have to be? I sketched out a hypothetical origin for the Noah story a few posts up.

...back at the end of the last ice age, some proto-Noah who saved his family and livestock along with a reasonable selection of local wild fauna (who may have come aboard without his assistance) from a huge glacial flood on a raft or barge of his own construction. A ripping adventure, growing over the years in oral tradition until it becomes so epic a yarn as to be worthy of having a religious spin put on it.

Is that true enough?

 

[Job 33:6]

I suppose ill just make a brief statement here.

There was a comment made

"The Flood is rejected as scientifically impossible, but bodily resurrection is accepted. Your whole thesis is a mess."

When it comes to geology, it is more than simply considering the flood (a global flood) an impossibility. It goes further in that there is not only an absence of evidence for it, but also a great deal of evidence against it. And by a great deal, I mean that if you really took time to lay it out on paper, your head would spin. And if you have ever tried talking to people like dad or the guy with the mad TV doll as his profile picture, you would learn quite quickly how far your head might spin trying to rationalize a global flood on scientific grounds.

But one good comment I once heard made by Kenneth Miller, a Roman Catholic, he once said...
I believe in God, but I do not believe he is deceptive, or I believe in a God, but I do not believe in a deceptive one.

And this really captures a significant point with regards to science. On scientific grounds, it is more than just an absence of global flood evidence, it is evidence to the contrary. Which would beg the question of why God would create a world that appears to have not experienced a global flood, when it actually did. Why would God create a world that appears to have existed in a long term uniformitarian way, when in fact it had not? It would come off almost as deceptive.

And I think this is a dilemma many of us run into.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The story of Noah is one of those things, because Jesus plainly believed it was literally true and he applied this story to the future - not a future that takes place in fiction, but a real, terrible future for most of humanity (Luke 17).

Amein.
ALL SCRIPTURE confirms the world wide flood.

The world ? They hate it - they are all under judgment.

Satan ? Satan hates it - he hates all truth.

The final judgment ? Not too much longer now.....

 

[Eryk]

Why would God create a world that appears to have existed in a long term uniformitarian way, when in fact it had not? It would come off almost as deceptive.

A God who intervenes in natural processes will never be an hypothesis of science, which operates on uniformitarian assumptions. There is going to be tension between the Bible and a system that excludes miracles and everything supernatural. Everything, including a divine First Cause. Every spiritual experience is a brain state that points to nothing. Some believers retreat before all this, to a theology of a completely transcendent spiritual realm. But the God of the Bible is sovereign over nature and history, and he is at work in the world.

 

[Job 33:6]

I

A God who intervenes in natural processes will never be an hypothesis of science, which operates on uniformitarian assumptions. There is going to be tension between the Bible and a system that excludes miracles and everything supernatural. Everything, including a divine First Cause. Every spiritual experience is a brain state that points to nothing. Some believers retreat before all this, to a theology of a completely transcendent spiritual realm. But the God of the Bible is sovereign over nature and history, and he is at work in the world.

While science might have trouble studying God Himself, indeed we could or would likely be able to study the affects of a Global flood (a miracle of God). Hence my post.

 

[Eryk]

While science might have trouble studying God Himself, indeed we could or would likely be able to study the affects of a Global flood (a miracle of God). Hence my post.

The truth of the Bible does not depend on human verification. There is no question of whether the Flood is reality or legend, global or local. The Biblical language is clear. We believe God.

Creationist organizations have weighed in on the scientific issues and you can evaluate them for yourself.

Creation Ministries International
Answers in Genesis

 

[sdowney717]

Ringwoodite in the earth's mantle is chemically bound water in rock. Science is now understanding how much water is under the earth. Somewhere I have read 3 times the amount of water versus the oceans. Tjis article says an equal amount of water bound in rocks.
When the water drained off the earth from the flood, the earth rose up standing both in the water and out of the water as at the creation as Apostle Peter wrote.

'It translates into a very, very large mass of water, approaching the sort of mass of water that's present in all the world's ocean," Pearson told Live Science's Our Amazing Planet.'
Rare Diamond Confirms That Earth's Mantle Holds an Ocean's Worth of Water
We don't need science to believe the scriptures, but it is interesting what man is finding out.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

And this really captures a significant point with regards to science. On scientific grounds, it is more than just an absence of global flood evidence, it is evidence to the contrary. Which would beg the question of why God would create a world that appears to have not experienced a global flood, when it actually did. Why would God create a world that appears to have existed in a long term uniformitarian way, when in fact it had not? It would come off almost as deceptive.

And I think this is a dilemma many of us run into.

I believe the Bible already has answers for those questions:

The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”​

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:19-21)

 

[Job 33:6]

The truth of the Bible does not depend on human verification. There is no question of whether the Flood is reality or legend, global or local. The Biblical language is clear. We believe God.

Creationist organizations have weighed in on the scientific issues and you can evaluate them for yourself.

Creation Ministries International
Answers in Genesis

If the biblical language were clear (or perhaps the better way to phrase things is, if people were perfect beings and had full understanding of every aspect of Gods word), this conversation would not be occurring now.

 

[Job 33:6]

I believe the Bible already has answers for those questions:
The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing.

I like this response. I wonder though, how we might distinguish between deceptive works of Satan and works of God, and who is to say that a faulty interpretation of scripture is not the true work of Satan, while observation of Gods creation is not actually Gods creation? Why is it assumed that science is what is susceptible to Satans deception, and that it is not mans inability to interpret language that deceptive?

There is a game I like playing with family and friends. You sit in a circle and each person gets a sence or word. Maybe that sentence or word is a cat in a hat. So that person draws a cat in the hat. Then they pass their picture to the next person, and the next person is supposed to guess what the image is and write down what they think it is, and draw their version of what they think the image is.

And you pass the image around in a circle. And each time you play, your image is never the same whit makes its way around the circle and gets back to you. When it comes to language and interpretation, people are notoriously bad at getting things right.

With science on the other hand, a rock is a rock. And when in doubt about the rock being described, any human being can go look at and touch and taste and smell that same rock. It doesn't go anywhere.

So while stories of the OT are thousands of years old, transferred by word of mouth and language, human language and interpretation and translation...

The earth today is just as it was since...well, for the past hundreds of millions of years. Here to be looked at, any time. It doesn't change, it just sits there in the dirt through time.

So back to the original point, would not scripture be more likely to be misinterpreted than the earth? Would it not be easier for Satan to manipulate mans faulty mind and interpretations (which we do already without his influence anyway), than for Satan to manipulate the appearance of the earth/Gods creation?

 

[Eryk]

So back to the original point, would not scripture be more likely to be misinterpreted than the earth? Would it not be easier for Satan to manipulate mans faulty mind and interpretations (which we do already without his influence anyway), than for Satan to manipulate the appearance of the earth/Gods creation?

The rocks don't speak for themselves, without human interpretation. Uniformitarianism is an interpretive grid.

 

[Speedwell]

The rocks don't speak for themselves, without human interpretation.

Neither does the Bible.

 

[Job 33:6]

The rocks don't speak for themselves, without human interpretation. Uniformitarianism is an interpretive grid.

Uniformitarianism does require interpretation of what rocks are, just as space travel requires interpretation of what fuel is. But when we judge how much fuel is necessary to get us to mars, and we confirm that amount by actually getting that space shuttle to mars, we rid ourselves of that subjection and confirm our understanding of the nature of fuel. And so to, in many forms, do we confirm our understanding of what rocks are, which in suit confirms uniformitarianism.

With that, I suppose I could move on. the conversation could not go further without it being one centered around science, and I think my key points were made in prior posts.

 

[Eryk]

Neither does the Bible.

Genesis 3:1 "Did God really say?"