Do TEs regard Noah and the Ark as symbolic?

[Marc15]

I know some TEs regard Adam as symbolic. But what about Noah and the Ark?

 

[Assyrian]

I go with local flood. The language describing the whole earth being flooded could just as easily be translated 'the whole land' and is used to describe the plagues in Egypt and the locusts covering the whole land.

 

[theFijian]

I know some TEs regard Adam as symbolic. But what about Noah and the Ark?

Do you mean only symbolic?

 

[Papias]

I'll answer for myself only. I don't know of actual data surveying a repsentative group of TE's, which is what you need if you want to know what most TE's think. (A few posts on an internet board could be very different just due to sampling error).

I think the flood is symbolic (while allowing the possibility that it is literal but local). There is so much evidence (that's why practically all geologists reject the idea of a global flood), in addition to simply logic, that makes it clear it isn't a literal global flood any more than God turning into an Eagle and flying 2 million Jews of of Egypt is literally true (Ex 19:4). Both are absurd. Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

I should point out, however, that for Adam, I don't see him as symbolic. A common Catholic view is that he was the first transitional Ape to cross the line to being human, thus preserving a literal Adam, and being fully consistent with the known scientific facts.

I described this on the thread here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7552551-3/#post57295645

where I have:

One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today – he was the first to whom God divinely gave a soul. Understanding how populations interbreed makes it obvious that all humans today are descended from him. Original sin did enter the human race though him, because he was the first to be divinely given a soul by God, and perhaps to be developed to the point of being able to conceptualize God, and hence to be able to rebel against God. The idea of Adam as a real, single, historical person, who brought about original sin, and who is the literal ancestor of all humans alive today, is fully compatible with, and an important part, for some, of theistic evolution.


Remember that there is variation, and that mutations are in individuals before they spread to the rest of the tribe. So as the whole community gradually evolves from ape to human, whatever arbitrary characteristic is used to define "being human", one individual will be the first to cross that line – including a line of “God divinely creating a soul” in one. Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. Think of that mayflower club, which only allows members who are descended from the few people who came over from Europe on the mayflower. That club today has thousands of members, and in a few thousand years or so, literally everyone on earth will be descended from those on the mayflower. The same holds true for an individual, so long as they have a few kids. Thus, if you have a few kids, it is very likely that in a few thousand years, literally everyone on earth will be descended from you as well. For instance, it is unavoidable that all of us on this board are descended from Cleopatra, and from the Egyptian pharaoh Khufu, etc.

Blessings-

Papias

 

[theFijian]

Isn't the Ark symbolic of God saving a chosen people from his own coming wrath? And doesn't Gen 7:16 "And the Lord shut him in" symbolise how the final act of Salvation is God's? Even AiG see symbolism here!

Of course all that doesn't mean that he wasn't a literal historical person.

 

[granpa]

the ark represents the new jerusalem which in turn represents the 4D hyperverse.

the new jerusalem is a 12 decastadia cube (about 20 Km)
plenty of room for 2 of every kind

 

[Marc15]

What about Noah himself? Do you think he was a real person?

 

[granpa]

Noah is a sort of hercules figure.

He also represents the stage in development when we develop 'right mindedness'.
(a clear understanding of right and wrong)

It doesnt concern me whether he is a real person or not.

the bible is full of repeating patterns so its quite possible that there have been many noahs.

 

[Mr Dave]

For me like the preceding chapters of Genesis, we have story of a kind that was common to the societies of the day (The Babylonian creations, babylonian floods etc...) but subverts the standard story. Back in the day as the story was begun, the listeners would have recognised what was coming up and would have seen how and when the story diverted from the norm and what this said about God or humanity etc...

 

[Marc15]

Noah is a sort of hercules figure.

He also represents the stage in development when we develop 'right mindedness'.
(a clear understanding of right and wrong)

It doesnt concern me whether he is a real person or not.

the bible is full of repeating patterns so its quite possible that there have been many noahs.

When did you consider for sure certain people in the Old testament are historic people? Is Abraham historic, Moses ect.?

 

[granpa]

As far as I am concerned the whole thing is a non-issue.

Some have suggested that the whole bible is some kind of science fiction novel (like dune) written by some kind of super intelligent being.
I personally wouldn't be bothered by that in the least.
Even if it is fiction is is still an astounding masterpiece packed full with all sorts of wisdom
and even if its not completely accurate it is probably at very least based on real events.

 

[theFijian]

Noah is a sort of hercules figure.

He also represents the stage in development when we develop 'right mindedness'.
(a clear understanding of right and wrong)

It doesnt concern me whether he is a real person or not.

the bible is full of repeating patterns so its quite possible that there have been many noahs.

And what represents the giant Krispy Kreme....??

 

[Assyrian]

And what represents the giant Krispy Kreme....??

That would be the Ark itself with its tasty juicy filling. You see the story wasn't written by Moses, a simple scribal error, it was written by a Mosasaur.

 

[Jase]

I go with local flood. The language describing the whole earth being flooded could just as easily be translated 'the whole land' and is used to describe the plagues in Egypt and the locusts covering the whole land.

I would agree with this. I don't believe there was actually a giant Ark that held millions of animals (the Ark described in the Bible would not be seaworthy). I think the Noah story is an embellishment of a local flood in the Mesopotamia region, possibly stemming from the Gilgamesh story.

 

[granpa]

Noah is a sort of hercules figure.

He also represents the stage in development when we develop 'right mindedness'.
(a clear understanding of right and wrong)

It doesnt concern me whether he is a real person or not.

the bible is full of repeating patterns so its quite possible that there have been many noahs.

Noahidism - Religion-wiki

Noahidism is a monotheistic ideology based on the Seven Laws of Noah. According to Jewish law, non-Jews are not obligated to convert to Judaism, but they are required to observe the Seven Laws of Noah. Those who subscribe to the observance of such laws and their supporting organizations are referred to as B'nei Noah (Hebrew: בני נו&#1495, Children of Noah or Noahides.

Technically, the Hebrew term B'nei Noah applies to all non-Jews as descendants of Noah. However, nowadays it is also used to refer specifically to those non-Jews who observe the Noahide Laws.

 

[Jazer]

I know some TEs regard Adam as symbolic. But what about Noah and the Ark?

Most people skip over the geneologys, I always read them. Noah was a real historical person and there is no reason to disregard the geneologys in the Bible. Even today we have that information in the Y Chromosome DNA. For the Hebrews it would be the J1 & J2 Haplotype.

 

[Papias]

Jazer wrote:

Noah was a real historical person and there is no reason to disregard the geneologys in the Bible. Even today we have that information in the Y Chromosome DNA. For the Hebrews it would be the J1 & J2 Haplotype.

Jazer tried to use the J1/2 stuff before, thinking that no one would check on it, and I posted this:

Um, you know that the genetic evidence puts haplogroup J2 as splitting from earlier stock 18,500 years ago. Biblical literalists put the flood at 4,500 years ago. 18,500 isn't the same as 4,500. http://www.christianforums.com/t7557977-3/#post57524365

Which it seemed he understood, because he didn't disagree. Now however, he's repeating the same falsehood (that the J1 & 2 haplogroups support a literal reading of Genesis). hmmmmm........

Jazer wrote:

Most people skip over the geneologys, I always read them. Noah was a real historical person and there is no reason to disregard the geneologys in the Bible.

Except that my Bible, and likely yours too, suggests itself that they are symbolic, by showing later writers changing them as if they weren't actual geneologies. You can see this by comparing the same geneology in Mt and Cr:

Mt Gen# .....................Gospel of Matthew has.............................. 1st Chron. Has:
1....................................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, .................Solomon's son was
2 ....................................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,............... Rehoboam,
3 ....................................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,
4....................................Asa .....................................................Asa his son,
5 ....................................Jehoshaphat ....................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6.................................... Jehoram ....................................Jehoram his son
....................................Skipped.................................... Ahaziah his son,

....................................Skipped ....................................Joash his son,
....................................Skipped ....................................Amaziah his son,
7..........................Uzziah the father of Jotham, ......Azariah his son,
8.................................... Jotham ....................................Jotham his son,
9 ....................................Ahaz ....................................Ahaz his son,
10.....................Hezekiah ....................................Hezekiah his son,
11.................................... Manasseh ....................................Manasseh his son,
12 ....................................Amon ....................................Amon his son,
13.................................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ..............Josiah his son.



Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that Noah is likely a figurative, not literal, person (or that the flood was simply local, without an ark with all the animals, etc).



Papias

 

[dknoonan]

I guess not all TE folks believe in an inerrant New Testament (don't laugh, I'm new at this). But speaking as one who does believe in inerrancy, the logic would go like this: Jesus was and is divine --> Jesus said the Word of God is truth (OT) --> the NT writings could not be less true that the OT --> the NT writers are accurate --> the NT writers ask us to imitate Noah's faith (Heb 11, 2 Pet 3) --> their exhortation would be vacuous if there never was a Noah who exercised faith --> therefore Noah was a real person.

Could the NT writers base an exhortation on something they knew to be a fable and not history? I don't believe so. The NT community grew in Jewish soil. If a sociologist were to study 1st century Judaism objectively, like one were to study a tribe in the rain forest, he/she would surely conclude that the Jews believed their religion -- their very existence -- was based on God's mights acts in space and time. Not nice religious stories. Likewise the NT people of God.

 

[theFijian]

Could the NT writers base an exhortation on something they knew to be a fable and not history? I don't believe so. The NT community grew in Jewish soil. If a sociologist were to study 1st century Judaism objectively, like one were to study a tribe in the rain forest, he/she would surely conclude that the Jews believed their religion -- their very existence -- was based on God's mights acts in space and time. Not nice religious stories.

So why would Jesus teach in parables? (not that I'm disputing that Noah was a real historical person)

 

[marlowe007]

According to Philo of Alexandria, the Flood is a metaphor for the cleansing of the soul; the Ark represents the body and Noah the righteous mind.