Noah and the Flood. Fact or Fantasy?

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Mr.Cheese
I'm a Christian and I believe in science.
That doesn't make me a liberal does it?

No, you're just not a True Christian(tm).

 

[Praxiteles]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
No, you're just not a True Christian(tm).

And I can neither confirm nor deny that I eat porridge.  Or that anyone else here does. 

Although, kilt wearing may be common.  But I won't confirm nor deny that either.  Unless it gets windy.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Which brings us back to that persistent question... Are all True Christians True Scotsmen??

 

[Praxiteles]

Oh, definitely!! Absolutely!!

Except when they're not, that is.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

I'm Irish! Does that count?
*sigh*
It's hard being a piece of cheese.

 

[Praxiteles]

Irish cheese? That doesn't sound like a valid fallacy to me.

Begone, invalid fallacy! Get ye hence, or somewhere else.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Smilin
The documentaries presented by the History Channel were from the viewpoint of scholars of Judaism & Christianity, different professors of theology, as well as several well respected pastors, & preachers.

You can simply dismiss anyone who tells you something you don't want to hear as 'not having the Holy Spirit of God'.... but not I. I'll let God judge them.

For my own curiosity John, how do you personally determine if an individual 'contains the Holy Spirit of God'????

Wow, these long threads make it difficult to keep track of a conversation. Is one of your honored scholars Dr. Ruth who gives her opinons on sex in the Bible?

Actually, I did search the History Channel for anything they had on the Bible. It would seem that they accept the Bible as a very accurate historical document, and do not really try to approach it's theology to much.

As far as who does and who does not have the Holy Spirit. That is not an easy question to answer. I try not to judge people. But we study the Holy Spirit to know as much about the Holy Spirit as we can. The pastor at my church just finished a 2 year study on the Holy Spirit.

So I look to see if what a person does, says or thinks, reflects the truth of God. I look to see if they are walking with God. This is difficult because some people are immature and they are in and out with God. They have not fully commited themselves and their life to God. So we need to be careful not to judge people before their time.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

Man. No wonder I'm so confused.
If I'm Irish, and aged...I'm not a piece of cheese at all!

 

[Praxiteles]

Unless you're aged to perfection. The best cheeses are.

Are you one of the best cheeses?

 

[Doctrine1st]

Originally posted by JohnR7
God waits for the fullness of time, when transgressions have reached their fullness.

Daniel 8:23
    "And in the latter time of their kingdom,
    When the transgressors have reached their fullness,
    A king shall arise,
    Having fierce features,
    Who understands sinister schemes.

Galatians 4:4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,


 



 

Yes, but the thing about it is Jesus is more than a willing participant in the "transgressions" to reach the boiling point being the author of killing those who aren't down with him, as well as death through famine and plagues. Look at Number 31 for example.

And aren't you chopping Daniel 8 up a bit? Taking it out of context?

 

[sulphur]

King Island double brie is the best cheese I have ever tasted.Sorry Mr Cheese

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I see that there's a bit of a rhubarb here over the meaning, in the original Hebrew, of the phrase translated as "after its/their kind." The original Hebrew is either l'minehu ("after its kind") or l'minam ("after their kind"). The l is a preposition that can mean to, of, for, or in this case, after. The word min, in Biblical Hebrew, generally means "species", "kind" or "sex" (as in "the two sexes"). (In modern Hebrew, it has been borrowed to mean sex, as in sexuality or the sexual act.) But in this case, it obviously means species/kind. The phrase first appears in Genesis 6:20.

Of the fowl after their kind, and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort...

Our very great medieval sage & Bible commentator Rabbi David Kimchi (12th-13th century Europe; see http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography/Kimchi.html) says that, in this case, it means 2 of each type/kind of fowl, 2 of each type/kind of bovine, etc. Now, whether Rabbi Kimche meant that there was a pair of every kind of owl (ferinstance), or a single pair of owls (I like owls), I don't know.

So, having said the foregoing, how do I, as an orthodox Jew, view Genesis? First, a word about a "literal reading" of the Tanakh. I don't think that any two people could agree on a "literal reading" of, say, Genesis (certainly mine, as an orthodox Jew and based on the original Hebrew, will probably differ in many particulars from that of a fundamentalist Protestant, based on the KJV); such a thing is inherently subjective and based on our own idiosyncrasies, psychological/emotional/spiritual baggage and personal it-seems-to-me's. Thus, we should be very leery of basing beliefs and/or arguments on a "literal reading" of the scriptures. Those who do insist on a strict, narrow, "literal" interpretation of this or that section of scripture are, I believe, forcing it into a literary and spiritual strait-jacket entirely of their own devising that does no justice to the scriptures. Of course, I believe that Genesis (and the other 4 books of the Torah: Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) is the literal word of God as He revealed it to Moses our Teacher. We believe that the Torah can be understood/appreciated/interpreted on any of four general levels ranging from that which is most in accord with a close reading of the (original Hebrew!!!) text, to the metaphorical, to the most rarefied and esoteric (the grasp of which is waaay beyond most of us). Who is to say which chapter and verse of Genesis is to be best understood or appreciated on which level? Moreover, our Sages say that the Torah is like a diamond with many facets, each with its own brilliance, each offering a different perspective from which to behold the wondrous jewel.

Lastly, I would humbly argue that we are grasping at trees & missing the forest. What is more important, (sterile?) debates over whether Genesis proves/supports or disproves/opposes this or that theory of creation or evolution or whether the Flood "really happened", or discussing, studying and seeking to internalize its sublime moral, ethical and spiritual truths (such as befit the word of God)? (The Torah is neither a history, geology, cosmology, zoology or geneology textbook. What it is isd God's instructions to us on how to live.)

Try this:

Genesis 7:6 tells us that

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Genesis 8:14-16 tell us that:

And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dried. And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dry. And God spoke unto Noah, saying: 'Go forth from the ark, you, and your wife, and your sons, and your sons' wives with you.

Thus, Noah & family were in the ark for just over one year.

Genesis 9:28-29 tells us that:

And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died.

Something doesn't jibe. Noah was 600 when the flood started. He was in the ark for (just over) one year. He lived 350 years after the flood & died at the ripe old age of 950. What happened to the year he was in the ark? One of my rabbis writes that:

The arithmetic of Noah's years (600 before + 350 after = 950) seems not to take into account the year of the Flood. There is a good case to be made for not considering the duration of the Flood in calculations of the chronology of the world. We might look at the Flood as a period of "suspended animation" - laws of nature were not in effect; perhaps time as we know it cannot apply to that interval. The animals in the ark did not function in their normal ways.

This could explain a lot; interesting, no?

Be well!

ssv

 

[Mr.Cheese]

Am I one of the best cheeses?
No, I just smell funny.
Darn the bad luck!

 

[Micaiah]

It is interesting to read the views of someone who knows the original language. Thanks.

I don't think that any two people could agree on a "literal reading" of, say, Genesis (certainly mine, as an orthodox Jew and based on the original Hebrew, will probably differ in many particulars from that of a fundamentalist Protestant, based on the KJV); such a thing is inherently subjective and based on our own idiosyncrasies, psychological/emotional/spiritual baggage and personal it-seems-to-me's.

I'd like to see a straight word for word translation of the first two chapters of Genesis. It would be of interest to see how difficult it would be to turn that into something meaningful in english. I do not see how personal views of Scripture would make a big difference to the translation at this stage. I wonder if you are overstating the variations that could exist. After all, the variations that I've seen in some verses in the NIV, NKJV, and NASB are minimal, and don't significantly affect the meaning. Evidently there is a fair degree of agreement between these translaters.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Micaiah
I'd like to see a straight word for word translation of the first two chapters of Genesis.

Most of my understanding of the first two chapters in the Bible comes from a study of what the various Hebrew words mean in the dictionary and how they are used in other scriptures. So I try to determine what Moses is telling us from the meaning of the words.

 

[sulphur]

Yes I can understand alittle bit of ancient greek but the thing that defeats me is context because the same word has many different conotations

 

[Micaiah]

Yes, from my limited knowledge on the subject, I can see it would be a challenge to know which shade of a words meaning would relate to a given sentence.

I seem to recall hearing people from Greek descent saying they could pick up a Greek NT and read it without too much trouble. I understand it is possible for Jews to do the same with the Jewish text of the OT. I'm not sure if they mean the text from ancient manuscripts, or a more contemporary Greek/Hebrew translation.

Comments anyone from such a background?

 

[Mr.Cheese]

What has helped in understanding context is extra biblical literature from business correspondence to grocery lists. Things like this help us to understand how koine Greek was used. So if you have a word that is being a problem, seeing other usages can possibly help you determine how the word is being used in what you are studying. I believe in literature this kind of study is called New Historicism. I want to say that Steven Greenblatt coined the term. It's basically understanding the historical context of a document so you can understand the document.
In bib. crit I gues it would be something like Form or Textual criticism.
I'm real rusty on this stuff.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

Oh. Yes. WHen you get proficient at Greek you can read through the GNT without too much trouble. The sentence structure and grammatical rules clue you in on a lot of things. Also what precedes a passage can help you understand what follows. Granted, in translating, you will always be faced with words you must interpret from time to time. That is unavoidable.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Non-literalists, or, more particularly non-inerrantists, believe that Christianity is God's choice method of having a relationship with humanity, and the Bible is the record of this interaction throughout history. Literalists treat the Bible as God's choice substitute for a relationship with humanity, and Christianity is what they call what they see in the Bible. Who needs to know God personally when everything he could ever say is already in the Bible?

That's interesting. I've never heard it put that way.  That's a theological problem with literalism I haven't heard yet. Thank you. Let's see if I follow you: if God really did say everything He could say in the Bible, then there is no personal relationship with God because what else does God have to say to you?  And this leads to a deistic rather than theistic God.  Intervene, say what He wants, and then head back to the bar and never interact with people ever again.  That last would seem to be a logical deduction from what you said.

The failure of inerrantism that I see mostly is that inerrantists set the Bible up to be falsified.  By using non-sequitor to tie untestable statements of ultimate meaning (God exists. God created.) to very testable statements that each and every word has to be true, that means that God can be falsified if the testable statements are shown to be false. Which of course leads 1) to the conflict of literalists with science and 2) the attempt by many atheists (not on this board) to paint Biblical literalism as the only interpretation possible of the Bible.