God goofs again!

[ebia]

Also many of us are defending the miracles of God against the onslaught(er) of science. The flood is one that can be defended actually using science. Immho of course.

It's one that should be very easily defended by science if it actually happened because it is just about unique in that it would leave evidence for use to see. However, that evidence doesn't exist so one has to conclude that the flood never happened.

 

[shernren]

I would think it is those who are trying to explain away God with science that would be the ones thinking like that.

I agree that man will try anything to remove God from the picture. Man will do what ever he can just to say there is no God so that man can continue to live in sin.

Sorry for having misinterpreted you brother. Having said that, I don't think your point of view makes much sense, to me at least.

See, the thing I don't get is that Christians like you will start proclaiming that "science is the evil enemy which will remove God from the picture". If that's your concern then dude ... the battle is already lost.

Science took God out of the picture of lightning.
And rain.
And disease.
And a lot of other things we used to attribute to God.

But then you'll see Christians believing in evil weather reports which portray lightning as an atheistic phenomenon, and you'll see Christians using abominations like vaccines and antibiotics which deny that God causes disease. Isn't that absurd? These things are born from the very science which has tried to take God out of the natural world! Evil evil!

[rant over]

You see what I mean? If you're going to believe in a God-of-the-gaps Christianity then you might as well consider yourself defeated already. After all, science can explain a whole lot about the universe already. God is "not needed" almost everywhere on earth already. Every time you post on ChristianForums, you are using electricity which "does not need God", to power semiconductor devices which "do not need God" that then send signals along copper wires (or fiber optic cables) which "do not need God" to transmit signals, which are interpreted by servers on the other end which "do not need God" either. I "don't need God" even to read what you've posted - light doesn't need a miracle to travel from the screen to reach my eyes.

God isn't so small and weak that He has only the holes science can't explain to hide in. God reigns in and through science. The Bible says that the universe wouldn't hold together without Him, and it is because He is a beautiful and orderly God that the universe around us is beautiful and orderly, with beautiful and orderly scientific laws. These laws do not block Him out of the picture: these laws simply mean that God has decided to run the universe in a fashion which seems regular and repetitive to us. It is God who is in charge, forevermore, over every scientific law. It is God who keeps dead people dead, where people who aren't looking for Him see only dry dusty laws of bioenergetics, and there is nothing in all of science that can stop anybody from believing that He couldn't twist the fabric of the universe and breathe eternal life into a dead body ... especially when it's going to be done for all of us at the end of ages.

God is behind both science and Christianity, and how can science be conflicting against Christianity, as if God would fight Himself?

 

[gluadys]

God is behind both science and Christianity, and how can science be conflicting against Christianity, as if God would fight Himself?

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

Drat!

 

[Schroeder]

Nothing arbitrary about it. Literature has its genres. Most aren't rigidly defined. But in general one does not confuse a drama with an epic or an ode with a sonnet. Myths, fables and legends have a lot of similarity to one another, but none of them are intentional allegories, whatever allegorical meaning was attributed to them by medieval scholastics.

but scripture usually makes it clear when it is fat or a allegory or parable. nothing in the story of noah does it suggest it was just a myth or alogory. if so where is it shown that it is.


I am confused with what you are saying about allegory as contrasted to myth. In the myth, the animals fit into the ark just as they would in an allegory. But in reality they could not, and that is true whether the story is myth or allegory.

The question I would be asking of an allegory, but not of a myth, is "what does this element of the story signify?" Because that is the essence of allegory--that each element of the story is a signifier of something. The ark would signify something, the pairs of animals would signify something, the door and window would signify something, the three stories of the ark would signify something, the raven, the dove, the 40 days of rain, Mount Ararat, etc. All would specifically refer to something outside the story.

This is not a characteristic of myth. And lacking any reason to assign signifiers to the various elements of the story, I consider it myth rather than allegory.[/quote] So at what point do you say the "MYTH" ended and the truth began. the story sort of includes abraham. he was a descendent of Shem was he not. If it was a myth why the use of a lineage, usually this usage show it to be true not a myth or story. find me a myth or story where a lineage is used in it in the bible. And it also mentiones cities that are later mentioned in scripture and ones that have been found in archelogy. So again where do you draw the line from myth to truth.

 

[Willtor]

but scripture usually makes it clear when it is fat or a allegory or parable. nothing in the story of noah does it suggest it was just a myth or alogory. if so where is it shown that it is.

I'd argue that the mere fact that we are having this discussion indicates otherwise. Some of us have read about the use of myth in ancient cultures. It was myth for a purpose. And it was never labeled as such until modern literary criticism. We talk about various cultures' myths, but none of the ancients who wrote them called them myths. They were simply what they were.

I am confused with what you are saying about allegory as contrasted to myth. In the myth, the animals fit into the ark just as they would in an allegory. But in reality they could not, and that is true whether the story is myth or allegory.

The question I would be asking of an allegory, but not of a myth, is "what does this element of the story signify?" Because that is the essence of allegory--that each element of the story is a signifier of something. The ark would signify something, the pairs of animals would signify something, the door and window would signify something, the three stories of the ark would signify something, the raven, the dove, the 40 days of rain, Mount Ararat, etc. All would specifically refer to something outside the story.

This is not a characteristic of myth. And lacking any reason to assign signifiers to the various elements of the story, I consider it myth rather than allegory.

So at what point do you say the "MYTH" ended and the truth began. the story sort of includes abraham. he was a descendent of Shem was he not. If it was a myth why the use of a lineage, usually this usage show it to be true not a myth or story. find me a myth or story where a lineage is used in it in the bible. And it also mentiones cities that are later mentioned in scripture and ones that have been found in archelogy. So again where do you draw the line from myth to truth.

Again, I think this is the wrong way of looking at it. We are not, here, concerned about myth vs. truth. We are all Christians in this part of the forum. We all think the Genesis story is true. But some also think that it is factual. Also, when a myth leads up to the "present" it should not be surprising that it includes actual people of whom stories are already told. The patriarchs, in particular, had to be included because their stories are indicative of something of God's tendency to form covenants (in this case, with a particular semitic people).

 

[Raistlinorr]

But then you'll see Christians believing in evil weather reports which portray lightning as an atheistic phenomenon, and you'll see Christians using abominations like vaccines and antibiotics which deny that God causes disease. Isn't that absurd? These things are born from the very science which has tried to take God out of the natural world! Evil evil!

See another misconception God is not the cause of disease, He will allow the enemy to inflict disease apoun some one though. Why? Don't know but the closest answer for that I can give is to tell you to read Job and see what happened there.

As far as science taking things away and placing them away from God I'ld agree that most of that has happened already. Many things God has done man is trying to explain away.
Lets look at creation shall we? You are see many more Christians that will sit and preach the same thing as an athiest on how life came about, they say we evolved from apes. Many believe that Adam and Eve were not real ppl just names given to explain that the life of man started. In fact several believe tht most if not all of the first book of the bible to be nothing more than fancifull stories given to teach a lesson.

How many miracles are happening today?

How many demon possesions are happening today?

Or are these being explained away as some thing else? For instance the movie about Emily Rose (yeah I know it had many hollywood things to it) the main idea of the story was about how science is explaining away the spiritual world.
Who says science is of God? Satan does not always come to ppl in mean evil looking ways. Many will be fooled by him and many already have. Some times he comes to ppl in ways that seem to not be harmful. Rember the story about the serpent? Or his promis to Christ?

God bless!
Raist

 

[rmwilliamsll]

So again where do you draw the line from myth to truth.

this great and common error is one reason for using mythos and logos distinction as developed by Karen Armstrong in _The Battle for God_
(a must read on the topic http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/03...f=pd_bbs_1/102-8502438-2478522?_encoding=UTF8)

mythos and logos are ways of looking at the world and writing about what you find there. hence it's application to the Bible.

 

[Schroeder]

I'd argue that the mere fact that we are having this discussion indicates otherwise. Some of us have read about the use of myth in ancient cultures. It was myth for a purpose. And it was never labeled as such until modern literary criticism. We talk about various cultures' myths, but none of the ancients who wrote them called them myths. They were simply what they were.

maybe so. but it is easy to misinterpret when you are looking for what you want to see. if you have a prior mindset as to how it was, not seeking the Spirits guide you will miss it. Again the bible was written through the Spirit, it should not be read in the same light as other history books. not that you should make every word litteral but you should no how and why it is written. That is why i said it tells us what is true and what is analogy or myth ect. There is no hint is was a myth, pleas show me where it does this.

Again, I think this is the wrong way of looking at it. We are not, here, concerned about myth vs. truth. We are all Christians in this part of the forum. We all think the Genesis story is true. But some also think that it is factual. Also, when a myth leads up to the "present" it should not be surprising that it includes actual people of whom stories are already told. The patriarchs, in particular, had to be included because their stories are indicative of something of God's tendency to form covenants (in this case, with a particular semitic people).

but this is where the problem lays. if it is myth we take it a certain way if it is not a differnet way. So it does make a huge difference. So How do you determine what is myth and fact if it is both all the way through. If you say science, then science can say you cant part the sea you cant make staffs heal or turn into snakes you cant come back to life. when do you decide what is not a science issue and what is. Nothing against science, this whole issue doesnt save or unsave, only God does this. But you still have to decide where to draw the line, and if done tis way it is all up to you where you want to do this. you form a lot of assumptions, you seem to think you know just how God decided to do it and how. i seems it is just needing to understand it all, so as not to be unknowing in a why. not knowing how something is done worries you or who ever. But i might be all wrong. we will all now sooner or later. thankfully on the better side.

 

[Willtor]

maybe so. but it is easy to misinterpret when you are looking for what you want to see. if you have a prior mindset as to how it was, not seeking the Spirits guide you will miss it. Again the bible was written through the Spirit, it should not be read in the same light as other history books. not that you should make every word litteral but you should no how and why it is written. That is why i said it tells us what is true and what is analogy or myth ect. There is no hint is was a myth, pleas show me where it does this.

My theology requires the acknowledgment that God works in an historical and social context. One cannot draw out an "abstract" truth about God, precisely because truth is not abstract. There is no freedom from history and culture because history and culture are, themselves, a free space in which to express oneself and follow the command of God. As God works in history and society, so His message must be interpreted in that light. The history and society in which Genesis was delivered was that of an ancient culture that was used to expressions of theology and philosophy in the form of myth. Reading Genesis in any light but this is reading into it implicit (likely, unintended) assumptions about the very nature of communication. We have no business approaching God on our own terms.

but this is where the problem lays. if it is myth we take it a certain way if it is not a differnet way. So it does make a huge difference. So How do you determine what is myth and fact if it is both all the way through. If you say science, then science can say you cant part the sea you cant make staffs heal or turn into snakes you cant come back to life. when do you decide what is not a science issue and what is. Nothing against science, this whole issue doesnt save or unsave, only God does this. But you still have to decide where to draw the line, and if done tis way it is all up to you where you want to do this. you form a lot of assumptions, you seem to think you know just how God decided to do it and how. i seems it is just needing to understand it all, so as not to be unknowing in a why. not knowing how something is done worries you or who ever. But i might be all wrong. we will all now sooner or later. thankfully on the better side.

I would never deny that it makes a huge difference. Again, this is indicative of the nature of things as I see them, especially in this forum. It is a harmful hermeneutic that first asks whether a thing is literal or figurative (of anything at all; including the resurrection of Christ). What must be considered is precisely what the author is trying to communicate. If we approach the author, on his terms, we approach the Holy Spirit who works through him. In the process, we may come to some conclusion of what is necessarily literal, and what is necessarily figurative. There may be passages where we are not certain. We shouldn't fight this possible conclusion.

 

[gluadys]

but scripture usually makes it clear when it is fat or a allegory or parable.

Does it? Always? Do you know this for a fact or are you repeating what someone told you?

Or do you discover what the nature of a biblical text is by becoming conversant in biblical literary genres first?

nothing in the story of noah does it suggest it was just a myth or alogory. if so where is it shown that it is.

I don't expect anything in the story to be a label of what sort of story it is. It is the story as a whole that tells us. In this case, the fact that it is one version of a much older myth that was common in Mesopotamian culture suggests this is simply the Hebrew version of the same myth.

So at what point do you say the "MYTH" ended and the truth began.

Myth is a literary genre. It is not the opposite of truth.

If it was a myth why the use of a lineage, usually this usage show it to be true not a myth or story.

Mythical genealogies are common in ancient cultures.

And it also mentiones cities that are later mentioned in scripture and ones that have been found in archelogy.

Not in the flood story. But it is still no problem. Myths were also ways to recount ancient political history.

So again where do you draw the line from myth to truth.

No line needs to be drawn since myth does not exclude truth. Myth is a way of teaching truth through story.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

ok. Why has the metaphysics derived from science and best referred to as scientism risen as a successful competitor to Christianity?

why does the kind of faith represented by a fundamentalist in the US who believes that evolution is wrong, that YECism is right, fail to keep it's own children in their faith when they go to college and learn science?

is a God of the gaps ideal really what God wants us to believe concerning the universe?

good questions, all, but i'm afraid you are incapable of answering them, given past performance i've seen online here when trying to defend a YECist position.


perhaps a reevaluation is in order?
a common thing to do when defeated.

I have never supported the YEC position (I don't distinguish between the, or, a, position). Your other questions should be asked of the appropriate sources, as they do not pertain to me.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ok. I was wrong about the exact word you were using. Sorry.

But what I said still holds. What you said was (to quote exactly and inerrantly this time )



(emphasis added)

Now, I don't get that sentence. It disagrees with everything I believe and know about science and miracles. Can you show me an example of this? An example of a miracle, which science cannot prove, but science has disproven?

If it really is a supernatural miracle (barring the area of the "natural miracle", something we discussed in-depth recently), chances are it makes no real scientific predictions. Just because the prophet's axhead floated on water doesn't mean I expect axheads to float on water all the time, and within a Christian scientific view God is responsible for scientific laws so that there is no illogicity in saying that God caused that particular axhead to float, just as ultimately it is God who causes all other axheads (and other generally over-dense pieces of metal) to sink.

Either something is provable by science, or it is not. We don't have miracles waiting like sitting ducks which can be disproven but not proven. I am aghast that anybody could think Christianity is so weak. Our faith is a beautiful faith and it does not rest on that kind of illogicity.

You are making my case for me. The bible is filled with miraculous events that will probably never be duplicated, as they were one-time happenings done for a special
purpose. Of course axeheads don't float, and the dead don't rise today. But because science has proven that these things are impossible are we to disbelieve the bible account of so many, many, miracles, relegating all of them to myth or other literary device? Not me man!

 

[gluadys]

maybe so. but it is easy to misinterpret when you are looking for what you want to see.

And that is just as true if your mindset says everything must be literal fact as if it is open to other literary genres as a means of communicating truth. Assuming a modern positivist reading of scripture as a default is just as much a bias as anything else.

That is why it is necessary to discover how people communicated at the time and in the culture that the scriptures were written.

if you have a prior mindset as to how it was, not seeking the Spirits guide you will miss it.

Please don't assume that if someone is using a different approach to reading scripture that they are rejecting the guidance of the Spirit. Just because people don't think like you does not mean they reject God's guidance.

Again the bible was written through the Spirit, it should not be read in the same light as other history books. not that you should make every word litteral but you should no how and why it is written.

When it is history, it should be read as history; when it is law, it should be read as law; when it is poetry, it should be read as poetry. Yes, you should know how and why each passage was written. You should respect the fact that ancient cultures seldom wrote objective history. They believed God acted in history, and that historical events were examples for us to ponder. The teaching was often more important to the writers than the event itself.

That is why i said it tells us what is true and what is analogy or myth ect. There is no hint is was a myth, pleas show me where it does this.

Since you are assuming that myth is not truth, your question is moot.

but this is where the problem lays. if it is myth we take it a certain way if it is not a differnet way. So it does make a huge difference. So How do you determine what is myth and fact if it is both all the way through.

Myth is truth, but it is not fact. Limiting truth to fact is a modern positivist assumption. Facts are true, but not the whole truth. Myth is a way of looking at truth that stands outside of observable fact, or that uses figurative concepts instead of facts to teach truth.

If you say science, then science can say you cant part the sea you cant make staffs heal or turn into snakes you cant come back to life.

That is not quite what science says. What science says is that these are not normal events, and that they can't be accounted for by the normal course of natural processes. Hence, these events must happen either because more than natural processes were involved, or because we don't know enough about nature to explain them.

Science does not deny that strange things happen. It looks for natural explanations of all events, but does not deny that some events may not have natural explanations. (Unless the scientist in question has adopted a philosophy of naturalism--but that is philosophy, not science.)

when do you decide what is not a science issue and what is.

When science has examined the evidence and can draw a conclusion from it. But that will only be a scientific conclusion. Whether the issue is also theological is another question. One does not preclude the other.

Nothing against science, this whole issue doesnt save or unsave, only God does this.

No disagreement here.

But you still have to decide where to draw the line, and if done tis way it is all up to you where you want to do this. you form a lot of assumptions, you seem to think you know just how God decided to do it and how.

How do you know they are assumptions and not conclusions? Are you repeating what someone told you? Many people who have little familiarity with science think many conclusions are assumptions, because they don't know the factual basis which led to the conclusions.

We do know how God decided to do it when God left evidence about his decisions in the things he made.

i seems it is just needing to understand it all, so as not to be unknowing in a why. not knowing how something is done worries you or who ever. But i might be all wrong. we will all now sooner or later. thankfully on the better side.

It takes time and a will to study to come to understanding what science has learned about the world, just as it takes time and a will to study, and waiting on the Spirit to come to an understanding of the ways of God. Not everyone has or needs to have a commitment to both. What we all do need is an attitude of respect for others, and a humility about things we have not studied. We should not assume that the Christian who thinks differently has less respect for scripture than ourselves.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's one that should be very easily defended by science if it actually happened because it is just about unique in that it would leave evidence for use to see. However, that evidence doesn't exist so one has to conclude that the flood never happened.

'Worldwide evidence of a single great flood' is the criterea for evidence, if not proof.

I have said before, and will say again and again: This evidence is impossible. The flood did not lay down such evidence. Indeed, no flood lays down this kind of evidence. Study the dynamics of the flood, as revealed, and you'll see this.

And based on this you can easily conclude that it may have happened. And that's good enough.

 

[Willtor]

'Worldwide evidence of a single great flood' is the criterea for evidence, if not proof.

I have said before, and will say again and again: This evidence is impossible. The flood did not lay down such evidence. Indeed, no flood lays down this kind of evidence. Study the dynamics of the flood, as revealed, and you'll see this.

And based on this you can easily conclude that it may have happened. And that's good enough.

No. This is incorrect. Geologists really do know what to look for, in the way of evidence, when it comes to floods. It turns out that very big floods share many of the same particulars as very small ones. There has never been a worldwide flood.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

'Worldwide evidence of a single great flood' is the criterea for evidence, if not proof.

I have said before, and will say again and again: This evidence is impossible. The flood did not lay down such evidence. Indeed, no flood lays down this kind of evidence. Study the dynamics of the flood, as revealed, and you'll see this.

And based on this you can easily conclude that it may have happened. And that's good enough.

simply not true.
look at the badlands of Washington state.
data is accessible at a PBS nova program.

rats, google failed me. i hope someone else finds that link to post. it was a good program and ought to be at your local library.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. This is incorrect. Geologists really do know what to look for, in the way of evidence, when it comes to floods. It turns out that very big floods share many of the same particulars as very small ones. There has never been a worldwide flood.

What you are saying is that a flood that inundates an area of say 100 square miles, of typical terrain, will leave evidence on every square foot of land. Won't happen.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[quote=gluadys]

Myth is truth, but it is not fact. Limiting truth to fact is a modern positivist assumption. Facts are true, but not the whole truth. Myth is a way of looking at truth that stands outside of observable fact, or that uses figurative concepts instead of facts to teach truth.

As I read mythology I'm beginning to realize that much of it contains elements of bible stories that may indeed flesh out those stories. However I believe that the bible story contains the central fact, while the myth adds detail and perspective.

For example, native American tribes in the Pacific northwest venerate the raven as the creator. One story has the raven circling above the sea supervising the creation of the earth, as it grows beneath him. To me this myth is real in the respect that Noah released a raven from the ark which clearly was an agent of observation for him, and, the dry land would appear to grow, if viewed from overhead, as the flood waters receded. Another version would be the GenOne re-creation, where it states that the dry land appeared.

Another is the fable of Icarus, clearly a metaphor of the fall of Lucifer. He had an assigned place between heaven and earth. He impetuously violated his bounds and fell to his demise. Even more interesting is the full story which includes his father, among others, in a detailed intrigue. Perhaps an allegory of the real intrigue that led to the Lucifer's rebellion; an event that I certainly believe literally happened.

I believe the central fact and truth is the bible account. Fables and myths surround them and may indeed help to understand them better as literal events. We can have the best of both worlds.

 

[ascribe2thelord]

I have recently been made aware, by scientists, that not only is the story of Noah's flood an allegory but there are serious flaws in that allegory.

It seems that the allegorical animals will not fit into the allegorical ark, and , that the allegorical ark cannot survive the allegorical flood.

Just wanted to pass that information on so you literalists can adjust your beliefs accordingly.

Maybe the animals were babies?

I find it confusing how liberals continually say this or that passage is allegorical, yet refuse to offer an explanation. Tell me what it's an allegory for! And if those (in worldly terms) big events are allegories, then what about the crucifixion itself? Is that an allegory too?



And besides, once you've torn apart the supernatural texts of the Bible, what do you have left? An empty message with no power to change hearts and lives, obviously. That's why more and more Christians are fleeing liberal strongholds for more conservative churches like the SBC, PCUSA, Pentacostal churches &ct.

 

[KerrMetric]

That's why more and more Christians are fleeing liberal strongholds for more conservative churches like the SBC, PCUSA, Pentacostal churches &ct.

The poorly educated ones perhaps.