Flood Arguments

[Vance]

Didn't you know? Not only does science have it all wrong, but so do all the historians.

It's absolutely amazing to see such stubborn resistance and defiance, in the face of magnitudes of evidence.

I am convinced that it is now truly a pride issue.

Jesus winces every time AV posts.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am convinced that it is now truly a pride issue.

Jesus winces every time AV posts.

No, Vance, it's a matter of interpreting the Bible literally - that's all. If you think I'm wrong, or if you think my interpretation is wrong, I challenge you to come up with a more literal interpretation than the one I've given. If you can't, then you need to acquiesce and desist with this garbage about "pride." The only thing I want to be accused of here in this Forum, is interpreting the Bible literally - nothing else.

 

[TheBear]

I am convinced that it is now truly a pride issue.

You might be right.

Jesus winces every time AV posts.

Well, that part is debatable.

However, I will say that there are many Christians who probably wince.

 

[Vance]

No, Vance, it's a matter of interpreting the Bible literally - that's all. If you think I'm wrong, or if you think my interpretation is wrong, I challenge you to come up with a more literal interpretation than the one I've given. If you can't, then you need to acquiesce and desist with this garbage about "pride." The only thing I want to be accused of here in this Forum, is interpreting the Bible literally - nothing else.

Why?

Tell me why it is necessary to read this particular Scriptural text as literal historical narrative? Do you read all Scriptural text as literal historical narrative? If not, why this one? Just because it sounds literal to your modern ears?

Seriously, since you are willing, it seems, to contradict historical and scientific evidence that is accepted by millions of Christians around the world who fully believe the same Bible you do, explain why it is essential to read the Genesis 1 and 2 texts literally.

Do you think that it is NEVER acceptable to allow evidence outside of Scripture to inform your interpretation of Scripture? If not, I will show you that you DO do this. If so, then when and under what circumstances is this acceptable?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

No, Vance, it's a matter of interpreting the Bible literally - that's all. If you think I'm wrong, or if you think my interpretation is wrong, I challenge you to come up with a more literal interpretation than the one I've given. If you can't, then you need to acquiesce and desist with this garbage about "pride." The only thing I want to be accused of here in this Forum, is interpreting the Bible literally - nothing else.

Wa...?

So, where does the Bible say it is supposed to be interpreted literally? What makes you so sure you have the right way of looking at it?

 

[Vance]

Wa...?

So, where does the Bible say it is supposed to be interpreted literally? What makes you so sure you have the right way of looking at it?

I'm telling you, it is pride. He is SO confident of his ability to interpret Scripture that he can not possibly conceive that he could have it wrong. Not to mention that admitting he is wrong will also seem to be "compromising" his faith, which, of course, is patently ridiculous. He takes spiritual pride in NOT "compromising", and he forgets that such pride is one of the greatest sins.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

This tells me that either the Flood didn't happen, or the stories were written after-the-fact to mock the true story --- and which explanation do you think I'm going to go with?

the wrong one, I'm guessing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vance
Is that a rhetorical question? It is obvious which one you SHOULD choose.

But, really, what is the historical evidence that offsets all the accepted evidence?

BTW, you do know that the Sumerian version of the flood, with many identical passages, predates Moses by hundreds of years, possibly up to 1,000 years? And it predates Abraham, who came from . . . guess where. Sumeria. So, what is more likely:

1. that Abraham and his family (some of whom, you will recall, kept their Sumerian gods) brought the Sumerian version they grew up with to Canaan where it was retold, hundreds of years later, by Abraham's descendants in the form we find in Scripture (which was obviously the version God wanted told for His own reasons, which need not have anything to do with literal history).

2. Abraham and his family knew the Sumerian version, and would have passed it down to their descendants, but at some point hundreds of years later, the Israelites developed an entire flood story completely independently which just happened to match the Sumerian version in many ways.

And around, and around, and around we go ---

Sounds about as close as your going to get from AV that he really, REALLY doesn't care about evidence or logic. let him have his Bible and leave him alone.

 

[Vance]

the wrong one, I'm guessing.Sounds about as close as your going to get from AV that he really, REALLY doesn't care about evidence or logic. let him have his Bible and leave him alone.

Would that it were so.

But, no, he does not just remain in his ignorance and faulty exegesis, but goes out into the world taking the line of rhetoric that does more harm to the Gospel message than anything most atheists can think up.

As one atheist here put it recently, he loves to have AV around since it makes his job of arguing against Christianity so much easier. AV and others of his ilk are the atheists best weapons.

 

[EnCrypto]

Right.

I interpret the King James Bible literally. And a literal interpretation of anything - be it the Bible, the newspaper, or the phonebook - means that there is only one way to interpret it - the right way.

(edited for space)

See what I'm saying?

Yes, I do, which is why I have repeatedly brought up some of the problems with a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible.

Such as reference to whales as fish and rabbits chewing their cud and therefore being unclean. You gave me a link, but it in no way explained the inaccuracy. Then there was also the implication that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Then there's the matter of the rules of the Bible. Not eating meat on Friday, no pork, no shellfish, no clothing of mixed fiber, not cutting your side locks, and not approaching women during their menstrual cycle.

And the contradictions, such as the two versions of Noah with very different accounts of how many animals he brought aboard.

Not to mention having to figure out what position to take on everything not mentioned in the Bible.

Also, out of curiosity, what is your position on evidence of modern human civilizations older than 6,000 years?

 

[Vance]

And the further problem is that AV does NOT read the Bible 100% literally. I am positive that he reads a great deal of it as metaphor or symbolism, etc. You can't get very far into Revelation without having to shift out of literalism. Psalms is FULL of symbolism, typology, etc, regarding future events, and he accepts this, but he refuses to accept that God could also inspire a text to be equally symbolic and figurative regarding PAST events. He is not even consistent in his own literalism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would that it were so.

But, no, he does not just remain in his ignorance and faulty exegesis...

And for the second time, I challenge you to show me another literal interpretation. If "mine" is so wrong, let's see you fix it --- right here. You may not agree with a literal interpretation, but what you (or anyone) cannot do, is change the literal interpretation.

If I hold a note that says I shot the sheriff, and I know I didn't shoot the sheriff, I still cannot claim that this note I'm holding does not say I shot the sheriff, or I would be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I do, which is why I have repeatedly brought up some of the problems with a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible.

Such as reference to whales as fish and rabbits chewing their cud and therefore being unclean.

And again, EnCrypto, what's the problem? If I'm holding a note that says 2 + 2 = 5, and I interpret this note literally, then I have no choice but to claim the note says 2 + 2 = 5 --- whether the note is right or wrong is irrelevant. I'm just mimicking the note. That's the nature of a literal interpretation.

 

[BrainHertz]

Yes, I do, which is why I have repeatedly brought up some of the problems with a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible.

Such as reference to whales as fish and rabbits chewing their cud and therefore being unclean. You gave me a link, but it in no way explained the inaccuracy. Then there was also the implication that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

You're not following. AV's position is that anything that disagrees with his particular Bible interpretation is wrong by definition. It makes no difference what evidence you present, and no explanation is required. If it disagrees, it's just wrong. The means by which it is wrong are subsidiary, and in fact unimportant, since they do not impact the conclusion in any way.

 

[Skaloop]

And for the second time, I challenge you to show me another literal interpretation. If "mine" is so wrong, let's see you fix it --- right here. You may not agree with a literal interpretation, but what you (or anyone) cannot do, is change the literal interpretation.

If I hold a note that says I shot the sheriff, and I know I didn't shoot the sheriff, I still cannot claim that this note I'm holding does not say I shot the sheriff, or I would be wrong.

But there can be multiple literal interpretations.

The phrase "Time flies like an arrow" has a few possible literal interpretations in addition to the generally accepted metaphorical one. So which of the following is the correct literal interpretation of "Time flies like an arrow."

1) Use a stopwatch to time the speed of flies in the same manner as you would measure the speed of an arrow.

2) Use a stopwatch to time the speed of flies in the same manner as an arrow would measure the speed of flies.

3) There is a certain type of fly, the time fly. These time flies enjoy a particular arrow. (Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.)

The fact is, much of our communication is ambiguous, and quite rarely subject to only one single literal interpretation.

As for your note, it too is ambiguous. "I shot the sherrif" could mean you shot him with a gun or other weapon, or that you shot him with a camera, or that you shot him from a cannon, or that you threw him like a shotput. Among other things, I am sure. But there are multiple possible interpretations, neither any more correct than the other.

 

[Vance]

And for the second time, I challenge you to show me another literal interpretation. If "mine" is so wrong, let's see you fix it --- right here. You may not agree with a literal interpretation, but what you (or anyone) cannot do, is change the literal interpretation.

If I hold a note that says I shot the sheriff, and I know I didn't shoot the sheriff, I still cannot claim that this note I'm holding does not say I shot the sheriff, or I would be wrong.

No, your interpretation is wrong precisely BECAUSE it is literal. I don't need to find ANOTHER wrong answer to replace YOUR wrong answer. That makes no sense.

Genesis 1 and 2 are describing literal events that happen in the past. To that extent, we can read it literally. But, it is not describing those events using the literary genre known as strict literal historical narrative. It is telling about those real, historical, literal events using the style of literature popular at the time (remember that nobody wrote in the style that you are reading it for many hundreds of years after these texts were first composed). They preferred symbolic, typological, figurative and poetic language to describe these actual, literal past events.

And, I can point to an exemplar verse where even the most literal reader I have come across seems to "get" this. In 2:7, we don't think that God took on human form to have literal human lungs so that He could literally "breathe" into Adam. No, even the most literal reader will recognize that this means that God did SOMETHING powerful and unique and impactful, which accomplished His purpose. And the writer wrote (and I believe was inspired to write) about this event in the manner in which someone from his culture would expect to have such an event explained, how they would prefer it explained. In powerful, evocative and symbolic language. It was not literally "breathing", but that figurative term gave the right "feel" and conveyed the correct and true idea.

Now, consider the rest of Genesis 1 and 2 being written in a similar style: using such powerful and evocative figurative language to describe real events.

Here is a quote from a recent book by an evangelical scholar:

Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament

http://www.amazon.com/Inspiration-In.../dp/0801027306

Here is one quote, as cited in the comments:

"Therefore, the question is not the degree to which Genesis conforms to what we would think is a proper description of origins. It is a fundamental misunderstanding of Genesis to expect it to answer questions generated by a modern worldview, such as whether the days were literal or figurative, or whether the days of creation can be lined up with modern science, or whether the flood was local or universal.... It is wholly incomprehensible to think that thousands of years ago God would have felt constrained to speak in a way that would be meaningful only to Westerners several thousand years later. To do so borders on modern, Western arrogance....To argue, as I am doing here, that such biblical stories as creation and the flood must be understood first and foremost in the ancient contexts, is nothing new. The point I would like to emphasize, however, is that such a firm grounding in ancient myth does not make Genesis less inspired; it is not a concession that we must put up with or an embarrassment to a sound doctrine of scripture. Quite to the contrary, such rootedness in the culture of the time is precisely what it means for God to speak to his people.... This is surely what it means for God to reveal himself to people - he accommodates, condescends, meets them where they are."

 

[tanzanos]

What does one expect from a person who believes that if there are differences between the original Hebrew, Coptic, and Greek writings in the Bible with the KJV of the Bible then the correct version is the KJV.

This type of warped logic excludes any possibility of a mature debate with him.

ALL HAIL AV1

 

[AV1611VET]

You're not following. AV's position is that anything that disagrees with his particular Bible interpretation is wrong by definition. It makes no difference what evidence you present, and no explanation is required. If it disagrees, it's just wrong. The means by which it is wrong are subsidiary, and in fact unimportant, since they do not impact the conclusion in any way.

I would agree with this, but I wish you would have said it this way:

You're not following. AV's position is that anything that disagrees with a literal interpretation of the Bible is wrong by definition. It makes no difference what evidence you present, and no explanation is required. If it disagrees, it's just wrong. The means by which it is wrong are subsidiary, and in fact unimportant, since they do not impact the conclusion in any way.

Do you ask someone who is holding a phone book to give you his interpretation of a number you want to call?

No --- you just say --- give me the phone number of [whatever].

 

[Vance]

I would agree with this, but I wish you would have said it this way:



Do you ask someone who is holding a phone book to give you his interpretation of a number you want to call?

No --- you just say --- give me the phone number of [whatever].

You are right, that would be to ask for, and expect, the wrong information from the source.

Which is what you are doing with Genesis 1 and 2.

Those passages are not a phone book. Or a modern history book. Or a modern scientific textbook. They are a description of massive events about the founding of the universe written not only a different language, but in a different CULTURE. God expects you to GET that, and read it appropriately. Instead, you insist on reading it much the way you describe above: entirely inappropriately.

 

[AV1611VET]

Vance, I'm going to ask you one more time, with the question reworded for simplicity. Then I'm going to do my /thread thing, and I'm done here.

But I'm asking you to give me a straight YES or NO to this simple question:

If I interpret the Bible literally, do I have the right to claim the Flood was a local flood?

In my opinion --- NO --- what say you?

And then I'm done here.

 

[Vance]

If you read it entirely literally, you are entirely wrong from the beginning. And you have given no good reason for reading it that way.

But, if you would insist on reading it literally, then I would have two words for you:

kol erets

This term, translated as "the whole earth", can be used to mean the entire planet, but about 75% of the time in Scripture, it is used to describe a local area, a piece of ground or even a group of people. It is actually only occasionally used to mean the entire planet. The writers did not even have a concept of the planet. It was all flat earth and was encompassing a very small area. So, if the original composers of this text knew that a flood came and wiped out their entire known "world", then kol erets it is. It works fine both ways.

BTW, when the Gospels describe a census being taken of the "whole earth", were they counting the natives in the South American rain forest? Or the folks in China or India? What is your literal reading of that phrase?

But, more importantly, why are you stuck on the literal interpretation. If you insist on refusing to defend such a reading, you can not, with intellectual honesty, go around espousing a literal reading just because it happens to be the style you believe is the right one. If you are going to convince anyone, you had better start giving the basis for your position.