Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
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.
shernren said:God is behind both science and Christianity, and how can science be conflicting against Christianity, as if God would fight Himself?
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.gluadys said: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.
Schroeder said: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.
Schroeder said: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.
shernren said: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!
So again where do you draw the line from myth to truth.
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.Willtor said: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.
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.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).
Schroeder said: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.
Schroeder said: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.
Schroeder said: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.
So at what point do you say the "MYTH" ended and the truth began.
If it was a myth why the use of a lineage, usually this usage show it to be true not a myth or story.
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.
rmwilliamsll said: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.
shernren said: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.
Schroeder said: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.
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.
ebia said: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.
oldwiseguy said:'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.
oldwiseguy said:'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 said: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.
oldwiseguy said: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.
ascribe2thelord said:That's why more and more Christians are fleeing liberal strongholds for more conservative churches like the SBC, PCUSA, Pentacostal churches &ct.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?