Genesis, Flood and Noah: Allegory or Literal

[Starforsaken]

Heres my question for both sides of this. Is genesis in its entirety allegorical or entirely literal? Does it switch from myth to actaul events somewhere in there? I'm under the belief that it is only one. If this is so and it is literal, was the flood global or local. I dont see how the flood could have been "the world known to them" or local, it seems pointless for God to give this man over 100 years to create this ark when he could have just as easilly moved to another part of "the world". If it was a literal global flood, what evidence is there of it? I've seen/heard people claim as fact that they found the flood atop Mt. Ararat. That is not evidence and has not been proven.

Now if it is biblical myth that would make noah a myth also. But wasn't noah the grandfather of enoch? Was enoch also a myth than?

 

[Mallon]

I'm beginning to think there were either multiple floods, or multiple Flood survivors, because they've found, like, four arks atop that mountain.

 

[laptoppop]

The entire book of Genesis is historical/literal -- but it also contains a multitude of spiritual lessons.

The worldwide flood left us most of the jumbled up mess called the geologic column. The flood explains what we really find in the physical evidence better than the conventional wisdom.

 

[chaoschristian]

Neither wholly literal nor wholly allegorical, rather wholly mythological and still holy.

This is ancient literature created within a paradigm that makes little sense to us members of a post-literate, post-modern, scientific society.

We must tread carefully when approaching scripture and seek first to understand the pov of the people who wrote it, the influence of their language on our sense of making sense, and ability to be informed by analysis of the physical evidence, all while continually seeking the hand of the Holy Spirit to guide us to clearer understanding.

Encyclopedia Brittanica is literal.

The Wizard of Oz is allegorical.

Scripture is both and neither and much, much more. It is myth.

Now you have to ask yourself, what is the difference between how you are using myth and how I am using myth?

Heres my question for both sides of this. Is genesis in its entirety allegorical or entirely literal? Does it switch from myth to actaul events somewhere in there? I'm under the belief that it is only one. If this is so and it is literal, was the flood global or local. I dont see how the flood could have been "the world known to them" or local, it seems pointless for God to give this man over 100 years to create this ark when he could have just as easilly moved to another part of "the world". If it was a literal global flood, what evidence is there of it? I've seen/heard people claim as fact that they found the flood atop Mt. Ararat. That is not evidence and has not been proven.

Now if it is biblical myth that would make noah a myth also. But wasn't noah the grandfather of enoch? Was enoch also a myth than?

 

[vossler]

Heres my question for both sides of this. Is genesis in its entirety allegorical or entirely literal? Does it switch from myth to actaul events somewhere in there? I'm under the belief that it is only one. If this is so and it is literal, was the flood global or local. I dont see how the flood could have been "the world known to them" or local, it seems pointless for God to give this man over 100 years to create this ark when he could have just as easilly moved to another part of "the world". If it was a literal global flood, what evidence is there of it? I've seen/heard people claim as fact that they found the flood atop Mt. Ararat. That is not evidence and has not been proven.

As I read your questions I see that you know the answers but for some reason you're not sure of them. Let me just say there are many things in life that we're unsure of, but the Word of God isn't one of them. Trust God that He said what He intended to say and believe and you'll never go wrong. Hallelujah!

 

[Mallon]

To laptoppop:
The geologic column isn't a "jumbled up mess". The fossils within it are neatly ordered.

To chaoschristian:
I would be leary of labelling all Scripture "myth", as you seem to imply.

 

[chaoschristian]

To laptoppop:
The geologic column isn't a "jumbled up mess". The fossils within it are neatly ordered.

To chaoschristian:
I would be leary of labelling all Scripture "myth", as you seem to imply.

All scripture is myth. I've said it before, as that is the position I hold.

Now long buried I'm sure, there is a thread on this in GT.

 

[laptoppop]

To laptoppop:
The geologic column isn't a "jumbled up mess". The fossils within it are neatly ordered.

I'm working (slowly, in my "spare" time) on a set of posts that can discuss this properly. As I study the realities of the geologic formations worldwide, there's a whole lot more "messiness" than is implied in most textbooks.

 

[laptoppop]

All scripture is myth. I've said it before, as that is the position I hold.

Now long buried I'm sure, there is a thread on this in GT.

I think the confusion comes in that many (most?) people would describe "myth" as a non-historical story with a message. I think you are trying to use it in a different manner.

 

[shernren]

Heres my question for both sides of this. Is genesis in its entirety allegorical or entirely literal? Does it switch from myth to actaul events somewhere in there? I'm under the belief that it is only one. If this is so and it is literal, was the flood global or local. I dont see how the flood could have been "the world known to them" or local, it seems pointless for God to give this man over 100 years to create this ark when he could have just as easilly moved to another part of "the world". If it was a literal global flood, what evidence is there of it? I've seen/heard people claim as fact that they found the flood atop Mt. Ararat. That is not evidence and has not been proven.

Now if it is biblical myth that would make noah a myth also. But wasn't noah the grandfather of enoch? Was enoch also a myth than?

Actually, in the Biblical genealogy, Enoch is the great-grandfather of Noah.

 

[shernren]

I think the confusion comes in that many (most?) people would describe "myth" as a non-historical story with a message. I think you are trying to use it in a different manner.

Personally, I doubt so. I think it's more because at a gut level people have associated the word "myth" with the concepts of deception and falsehood, or at least guile. "Myth" associates with things like "urban legend", "hoax", "lie", etc. The concept itself (of a non-historical story with a message) really isn't thaatt problematic when taken on its own, but tag the label "myth" onto it and suddenly people see the Enemy Of All Truth and start running.

 

[chaoschristian]

Look at how the OP uses it:

Now if it is biblical myth that would make noah a myth also. But wasn't noah the grandfather of enoch? Was enoch also a myth than?

The problem is the unspoken assumption that myth=made up story/lie/fiction (as Shernren pointed out and has been witnessed lots of time here in the forum).

I think the confusion comes in that many (most?) people would describe "myth" as a non-historical story with a message. I think you are trying to use it in a different manner.

If you did a man on the street, I suspect most people would respond with fairy tale or made up story.

Myth is the phenomenological expression of what we now can also describe as history, biography, natural science and religion.

Whereas we can differentiate (or artificially divide, depending on your pov) between these types of 'sciences' the people of the ANE had no such paradigm, and as such expressed their experiences of God and Creation in a necessarily mythological manner.

There may indeed be history, biography and perhaps even a little natural science embedded in scripture.

Its actually irrelevant. The message conveys despite the means.

Here's a question: what about the flood story is fundementally essential to Christian theology? Within the framework of 'the cross alone is my theology' what is lost if the flood story never appears in scripture?

 

[vossler]

Personally, I doubt so. I think it's more because at a gut level people have associated the word "myth" with the concepts of deception and falsehood, or at least guile. "Myth" associates with things like "urban legend", "hoax", "lie", etc. The concept itself (of a non-historical story with a message) really isn't thaatt problematic when taken on its own, but tag the label "myth" onto it and suddenly people see the Enemy Of All Truth and start running.

I would agree with this assessment, except everything after the last comma, I'm not running anywhere.

The main problem I have with the word myth when it is associated with Scripture is that it allows for or provides another means of each person coming up with their own interpretation of Scripture. When Bible stories can be viewed as mythological events the line between fact and fiction becomes something that each individual for themselves can determine. This is borne out by the multitude of different views of Genesis and how many people view the characters within the stories. For some many are real people while others are not, where the line is no one knows because the line exists in the mind of the reader only.

 

[vossler]

Here's a question: what about the flood story is fundementally essential to Christian theology? Within the framework of 'the cross alone is my theology' what is lost if the flood story never appears in scripture?

If you use that as the litmus test then there are a multitude of stories from the OT that don't hold up to a framework of 'the cross alone is my theology.' We could parse out a majority of the Bible that way.

 

[Mallon]

We could parse out a majority of the Bible that way.

For what it's worth, much (most?) of the Old Testament is already "parsed out", or overwritten, by the New Testament Gospel.

 

[laptoppop]

Many of the great themes in the Bible are repeated over and over. This allows each expression of the theme to add its own richness, and also reinforces and preserves the message -- it preserves it in the way that if any one copy got corrupted or diluted, the others would still be there. Chuck Missler points out that this is exactly what you might do to preserve a message sent into enemy territory.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Many of the great themes in the Bible are repeated over and over. This allows each expression of the theme to add its own richness, and also reinforces and preserves the message -- it preserves it in the way that if any one copy got corrupted or diluted, the others would still be there. Chuck Missler points out that this is exactly what you might do to preserve a message sent into enemy territory.

I'm not sure what themes you are talking about. There are lots of themes repeated multiple times in the Bible. There are themes repeated multiple times because the actors are in enemy territory, for example.

In Genesis, the subterfuge of telling people that your beautiful wife is your sister is used several times. Gen 12:11 with Abram and his wife Sarah in Egypt, and again in Gerar in Gen 20:2, and in Gerar with Isaac and Rebecah in Gen 26:7.

I see the problem of being in enemy territory and being afraid that you will be killed because people want your beautiful wife, but i don't think that God is teaching this as a legitimate method for us to use today while travelling in unsafe places. So i'm not sure what message is so important here that it has to be repeated 3 distinctly different times with lots of detail. I suspect once would have been sufficient.

 

[laptoppop]

I hope your last post was tongue in cheek - but I didn't see any smilees. Of course, I'm talking about themes like God's love, His hatred of sin and the effects of sin, His redemptive plan, His faithfulness, etc.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I hope your last post was tongue in cheek - but I didn't see any smilees. Of course, I'm talking about themes like God's love, His hatred of sin and the effects of sin, His redemptive plan, His faithfulness, etc.

the point is that there is a lot of things, even things that are repeated a number of times, that we don't really have a clue what God wants us to do with them. The problem is trying to cut and paste Scripture (parse it out, overwritten, superseded) is really problematic, even if done to maximize the major themes.

This is not the same thing as struggling to understand the genre, the context, the social-political-cultural issues of the original readers.

This idea that there is an essential core to the Scriptures and that we can identify it in some way is as difficult to put into practice as the idea that you can list the essential doctrines in order of priority and draw a line with true Christians all above that line and everyone else below it, something i see commonly in this creation-evolution debate.

I just don't think things are that simple and straightforward, as these 3 examples of the same subterfuge seem to show. It appears that Scripture, as a whole, is to be accepted for what it is, without attempting to "parse out" either the naughty bits or those parts we fail to understand or even those parts that seem a bit redundant since they are repeated.

 

[chaoschristian]

If you use that as the litmus test then there are a multitude of stories from the OT that don't hold up to a framework of 'the cross alone is my theology.' We could parse out a majority of the Bible that way.

Each individual piece of scripture must be taken on its own merits. And I'm not talking about Genesis vs Matthew, I'm talking about the individual stories that comprise Genesis and Matthew, etc, etc, etc.

Here is where you and I hold different view points:

I think I am familiar enough with you to say that you view the Bible as The Bible, a book, written by God through the divine inspiration of men who unfailingly wrote his words, to be the fulfilled and complete inerrant history, both salvation and natural, of Creation, that serves to describe the definitive boundary of what is and is not prescribed and proscribed Christian theology and ethic.

All pieces form a whole that cannot be broken or divided without violating the boundaries.

Am I correct and accurate in this?

(BTW: this is meant to be descriptive, not judgemental. Vossler knows that, I just want to be clear that everyone else understands that too. We know we can disagree on this and still be brothers in Christ.)

I view scripture as a collection of stories created over time, written by people who were inspired by the divine and through whose works divine authority speaks to the reader (regardless of time or place), actuated by the indwelling Holy Spirit. I view scripture as primarily literary works that are specific to time, place and culture, that nevertheless convey the divine despite the medium. I view scripture as a collection of stories that suffer from unfortunate formatting that provides the illusion of many pieces being formed into a whole, that is not entirely complete or comprehensive, and certainly does not serve as the definitive boundary for Christian theology or ethic, and that must be reconciled with the other revelations that God provides of himself.

Now, I am sure that not every, and perhaps not any, TE agrees with what I have written, and so in that regard I speak only for myself.

From your point of, if I have accurately captured it, there is no means by which any part of scripture can be individually tested and judged against the cross, as it all serves to point to the cross.

From my point of view the cross was unknown to the OT authors, otherwise scripture would speak differently than it does. Therefore, each individual piece must be judged and the question asked: is this important? And each one us must individually respond to that question, for each of us comes to the cross individually. Not as families, not as churches, not as societies or cultures or ages, but as lowly individuals.