In regards to it happening, not happening, no. But you agree with me, so there is little to quibble about on this specific point really... But my point is I conclude that the author intended for this event to be actual. And this is where the problem only begins for me.
How can you conclude that the author intended anything at all? If the story of Noah's Ark was adapted from a Sumerian myth, there would have been no specific author.
I'm not even addressing any possible moral implications attached. If you wish to, that's fine. In this thread, I'm simply addressing the black and white claimed literal events 'said' to have happened. Not the moral reasons attached to their claims....
But I do get a kick out of some apologists, whom love to dance around such obvious observations.
I'm not dancing around the fact that Genesis can't be taken literally. It wouldn't have even occurred to me to take it literally in the first place, though, so I don't see what the problem is. If you want to go fight with a literalist instead, be my guest, but don't accuse anyone else of dancing around what they see no need to defend at all.
No, I spoke to many sects, bigger and some smaller as well. Catholics included. But this further kind of demonstrates my point. There exists one real answer to each such questions. It seems as though people of religion are somewhat 'off limits' to scrutiny and deep inquiry. Many do not want their beliefs questioned. Not all, but many.... But in reality, I find it odd that we have a large book of stories, for millenia and counting, and yet there continues to exist deep division, upon many conclusions. One might think many of such writings would have been universalized by now?..?.? But hey, I'm just an ignorant naive simpleton.
I don't think you understand how any field of study works. We come closest to a system of universalization in the physical sciences, and even there, it is unclear whether a unified "theory of everything" is ever going to be feasible. Once we move into the realms of history and literature, problems multiply, and historians and critics have countless different opinions about what things actually mean.
Reality is tricky. I'm not sure why you would expect religion to be handed to us on a silver platter if nothing else has been.
There exists no universal conclusions or answers to practically any claim from the Bible. Odd really. Not even WITHIN the exact same sect. It's a free-for-all.
No, it's not. There are some pretty universal conclusions concerning the New Testament.
Well, I'll give you a quick example. I was in deep discussion with an 'old-earther'. We were discussing the creation days. He stated they are not literal 24 hours days. But on 'day 6' is when animals and humans are created. For this to be possible, millions of years would need to transpire between the beginning of animals and the start of humans. So if day 6 needed to be millions of years long to be completed, then how did the very first humans live past the 'first week' of the creation account? (rhetorical question)... I already know a savvy apologist can interject with arguments. Just letting you know, I've spoken to alternate views.
Sounds like your old-earther is as oblivious as your new-earther to the concept of literary devices. Why either wants to treat Genesis 1 like a scientific treatise and try to use it to measure concrete time is quite beyond me.
But my point is, only one position could be right. Seems peculiar that after thousands of years of study, there exists such deep division, with no standard to address. Even here, the translation is wide, far, and divided. And yet, I see very little of you guys hashing such conclusions out with one another. Just instead with the skeptics, doubters, and atheists, whom openly admit they are in doubt or disbelieve to the entire premise.
This isn't really a problem that is thousands of years old. Fighting over precisely how old the universe might be is a fairly recent development. If you want debates that are thousands of years old, you want to look at the Christological controversies instead. Now those are fun.
If you wandered into the theological forums, I'm sure you'd find people arguing about this stuff with each other. I'm not sure why you'd expect those of us who don't take it literally to be hashing it out with people who do, though. Why should I waste my time arguing over something I don't care about? I only posted here because you expressly requested responses from non-literalists.
I feel religion gets a free pass to say whatever they want, and almost not be challenged internally. When under the content of religious dogma, one seems to be allowed to say practically anything and not be judged, critiqued, or questioned. It seems to be the one venue compartmentalized, and revered as sacred and almost off limits.
In that case, maybe you should spend more time with the parts of the religious world that do engage in internal and external debate, rather than those that don't.
Almost half of the NT docs were provided by Sal, I agree. The other half, good question. It's fairly safe to conclude 'John' was written well past the life expectancy, for such a 'John' to have wrote it. And when comparing John to Mark, you must admit the differences are quite vast, more in line with large later embellishments.
It's not safe to conclude anything at all about the Gospel of John. According to tradition, John was the youngest of the apostles, and outlived the rest, dying of natural causes. Even the typical dating of that Gospel to 90 AD is not beyond life expectancy, and that is assuming it wasn't penned by a disciple of his in his name later.
But yes, there are stylistic differences. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that what's going on there is theological speculation on the part of a disciple years afterwards rather than embellishment on the part of a larger community.
