God goofs again!

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

 

[Gwenyfur]

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 can not survive the allegorical flood.

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

The only thing "allegorical" about the word of G-d is man's interpretation of it.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Actually the correct term is "mythical" not "allegorical". i.e. the story is a myth.

However, it is also possible to draw allegorical meanings from it, as Peter does when he compares the flood to baptism.

Medieval theologians loved allegory and attributed allegorical meanings to every detail of many biblical stories. But that doesn't mean all the stories were intended to be allegories. OTOH they did not over-literalize the stories as creationists tend to do.

Real allegory is also found in scripture. Several of Jesus' parables are intentional allegories, and in some cases he explains them (the Parable of the Sower). Also apocalyptic passages contain a lot of allegory. e.g. the trials and tribulations of Daniel and his companions are allegories of persecutions visited on the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes.

 

[LoG]

Hopefully someone told Noah not to build a literal ark for the allegorical/mythological flood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually the correct term is "mythical" not "allegorical". i.e. the story is a myth.

However, it is also possible to draw allegorical meanings from it, as Peter does when he compares the flood to baptism.

Medieval theologians loved allegory and attributed allegorical meanings to every detail of many biblical stories. But that doesn't mean all the stories were intended to be allegories. OTOH they did not over-literalize the stories as creationists tend to do.

Real allegory is also found in scripture. Several of Jesus' parables are intentional allegories, and in some cases he explains them (the Parable of the Sower). Also apocalyptic passages contain a lot of allegory. e.g. the trials and tribulations of Daniel and his companions are allegories of persecutions visited on the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes.

Sorry, I'll rephrase what the scientists assured me:

The mythical animals won't all fit into the mythical ark, and, the mythical ark won't survive the mythical flood.

I think you missed the point. You scientists aren't satisfied with relegating the story to allegory. You are saying that the allegory is also flawed.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Sorry, I'll rephrase what the scientists assured me:

The mythical animals won't all fit into the mythical ark, and, the mythical ark won't survive the mythical flood.

I think you missed the point. You scientists aren't satisfied with relegating the story to allegory. You are saying that the allegory is also flawed.

So it's our fault that God's created reality does not fit the fantasy world created by you in your own head?

 

[Dannager]

Sorry, I'll rephrase what the scientists assured me:

The mythical animals won't all fit into the mythical ark, and, the mythical ark won't survive the mythical flood.

I think you missed the point. You scientists aren't satisfied with relegating the story to allegory. You are saying that the allegory is also flawed.

No, those arguments are created for occasions when the YEC refuses to accept the allegory - so we show them why a literal interpretation is nonsense. The correct phrasing is:

If the flood account were literal, the literal animals won't all fit into the literal ark, and, the literal ark won't survive the literal flood.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Gwenyfur]

y'all just keep cracking me up...

 

[shernren]

y'all just keep cracking me up...

It's mutual.

 

[gluadys]

Sorry, I'll rephrase what the scientists assured me:

The mythical animals won't all fit into the mythical ark, and, the mythical ark won't survive the mythical flood.

I think you missed the point. You scientists aren't satisfied with relegating the story to allegory. You are saying that the allegory is also flawed.

What Dannager said.

You can't say a myth is flawed because it can't be literally factual.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So it's our fault that God's created reality does not fit the fantasy world created by you in your own head?

News flash. I didn't write the story.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, those arguments are created for occasions when the YEC refuses to accept the allegory - so we show them why a literal interpretation is nonsense. The correct phrasing is:

If the flood account were literal, the literal animals won't all fit into the literal ark, and, the literal ark won't survive the literal flood.

Thanks for playing.

Sooooooo....God goofed, right?

 

[KerrMetric]

Sooooooo....God goofed, right?

How did he goof when some ancient Jews wrote a story?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What Dannager said.

You can't say a myth is flawed because it can't be literally factual.

You arbitrarily determined the story to be a myth, so that no one would expect the animals to fit into the ark. In an allegory they would.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How did he goof when some ancient Jews wrote a story?

Now we're getting somewhere. When do we discuss the resurrection?

 

[KerrMetric]

Now we're getting somewhere. When do we discuss the resurrection?

Wrong forum for that. And it is so obvious where those of a simplistic faith want to go with this.

 

[gluadys]

You arbitrarily determined the story to be a myth, so that no one would expect the animals to fit into the ark. In an allegory they would.

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.


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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.


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.

I understand all that. But what then, is the purpose of the story? Why did Jesus first say that "Lazarus sleeps". Why didn't he just say in the first place that "Lazarus is dead"? Why bother with a metaphorical term? His tone even indicated that he was a bit angry because they didn't want to understand that Lazarus was dead. He used the metaphor to at least verbally soften the impact of what happened. But, Lazarus was still dead. In other words the metaphoric term sleep meant exactly the same thing as dead.

If the flood story was a myth, or allegory, wouldn't it have been spoken to Noah that way? He could have just contemplated the lessons that might be learned if something like that ever happened and saved everyone all this trouble.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wrong forum for that. And it is so obvious where those of a simplistic faith want to go with this.

One by one all biblical miracles will be debunked by science. This can be done as they cannot be proven scientifically. The last one will be the resurrection. This certainly is part of the conversation about origins, if critical science is being brought into it.

Life itself is an unprecented miracle that cannot be explained by science. The normal condition in all of the universe is the absence of life.

 

[Dannager]

Life itself is an unprecented miracle that cannot be explained by science. The normal condition in all of the universe is the absence of life.

I'm not sure what you mean by "normal", but certainly the usual condition that we are aware of on planetary objects is the absence of life. Granted, we only really have our own solar system to go by, and not very many of these planets could sustain life currently.