Noah's Ark Question

[Mr Dave]

So if the flood is just a story, is the Garden of Eden just a story? If they are just stories, why isn't Jesus' resurrection just a story, and then why not not the whole Bible? If one thing is a big metaphor, then there's a big chance the entire thing is one.

Not at all. Why would I look at two separate texts, separated by hundreds of years, separated by different cultures, separated by contexts, differing in author, separated by genre (a genre which has been attested to since the writing of the two texts) and assume that they must both be either historical works in every detail or both be metaphorical works in every detail.

 

[mulimulix]

Why would anyone but an idiot look at the bible, which clearly contains a vast array of different genres and assume that all the narratives are one particular subset of genres? If you walk into a library and the first section you find is the fiction, on later picking up a book from another part of the library assume that must be fiction too, or do you assess it on its own terms?


Note that non-historical narrative is not a lesser form: the early chapters of Genesis address with great truth some if the most important questions humanity ever asks. And they answer them better precisely by doing so as story. That's why most cultures answer their most important questions with story.

I am not entirely sure what you talking about with the different genres. What's the difference if it has one genre of a thousand genres?

I am also unsure what you were getting at with the library analogy. Can you please explain this?

In the case of Genesis, I believe it is simply a matter of what people want the reality to be, not the facts. It is much easier to understand the story (as you say) than to pick up a book on cosmology and learn about that, I agree, but just because it is in a book and explains something definitely does not mean it is true.

Nope. Never heard of adaptation?

I can only assume you haven't read my previous replies, as I have addressed this point. 4000 odd years is nowhere near enough time for the ethnicities around the world to be as they are.

 

[solarwave]

Besides the fact that the credibility of the Bible is in question, a non-fiction book will not have fiction in it unless it is EXPLICITLY said that is it fiction, otherwise it isn't non-fiction.

Its not as if the Bible is one book though. Still I think Genesis has myth in it as well as storys which are closer to literal history. To think that one nullifies I think is to simply reduce the complexity of what we are trying to consider down to a simple 'either/or, black/white' understanding.

How the Bible has been written and its meaning is more complicated than 'this writer wrote this book and this book has a non-literal story in it, therefore the book is non-literal'.

 

[mulimulix]

Its not as if the Bible is one book though. Still I think Genesis has myth in it as well as storys which are closer to literal history. To think that one nullifies I think is to simply reduce the complexity of what we are trying to consider down to a simple 'either/or, black/white' understanding.

How the Bible has been written and its meaning is more complicated than 'this writer wrote this book and this book has a non-literal story in it, therefore the book is non-literal'.

I know what you're saying but can you provide an example of a book which has both fiction and non-fiction in it without specifically saying that?

It is just funny that, not long ago, there was a time where everyone thought the Bible was completely literal, but since there have been advancements in science and things have been hugely doubted, they are not seen as literal any more.

 

[razeontherock]

But the point about you and your grandson looking alike sort of helps my argument. I'm saying that it takes such a long time for big changes to happen that there simply was enough of it after the flood for it to happen.

After a long, long time. You'll see that black-skinned people are native to Australia and Africa and some small islands. What do those places have in common, yes, sunlight. When the Aboriginals came to Australia about 40 - 60000 years ago, they would have most likely been white. This is the time frame you need for skin colour to completely change for an entire group of people, not 1/10th of it.

You have absolutely NOTHING to base this on

 

[razeontherock]

a non-fiction book will not have fiction in it unless it is EXPLICITLY said that is it fiction, otherwise it isn't non-fiction.

Ah yes. The black and white world of an atheist?

 

[mulimulix]

You have absolutely NOTHING to base this on

The reason I have something to base it on is because it has happened! And the reason I know it couldn't have happened in the time frame the Bible says is because there would have been drastic changes IN OUR LIFETIMES if it were true! Think about it! If in 4000 years, there could be huge changes like turning a middle-eastern person into a modern Asian person, there would have had to have been massive changes. In 50 years, there would be noticeable changes from person to person from people born in the same area. Yet, Asian people still look like they did 50, 100 or 200 years ago and white people still look like they did in the same time frame.

It is for the same reason macro-evolution can't happen in the Bible's time frame that ethnicities cannot be created in the Bible's time frame.

 

[solarwave]

I know what you're saying but can you provide an example of a book which has both fiction and non-fiction in it without specifically saying that?

It is just funny that, not long ago, there was a time where everyone thought the Bible was completely literal, but since there have been advancements in science and things have been hugely doubted, they are not seen as literal any more.

I can too, but does it mean that the whole thing is is metaphorical.... even though it being metaphirical would still prove atheism wrong.

Not long ago Newtonian physics was though to explain gravity, but then einstein came long. I am not beyond say although the Jesus of the Bible may be a good moral teacher, some of what He says may be improved upon.

 

[mulimulix]

I can too, but does it mean that the whole thing is is metaphorical.... even though it being metaphirical would still prove atheism wrong.

Not long ago Newtonian physics was though to explain gravity, but then einstein came long. I am not beyond say although the Jesus of the Bible may be a good moral teacher, some of what He says may be improved upon.

Then name the book!

I don't know what you're getting at with the Newtonian physics thing. Science isn't perfect, no one says that; mistakes are made and (much) more often than not, they are rectified within a reasonable time frame.

 

[razeontherock]

It is just funny that, not long ago, there was a time where everyone thought the Bible was completely literal, but since there have been advancements in science and things have been hugely doubted, they are not seen as literal any more.

Why would you even form an opinion on such a thing, when you obviously have no historical perspective on the subject?

 

[razeontherock]

If in 4000 years, there could be huge changes like turning a middle-eastern person into a modern Asian person, there would have had to have been massive changes. In 50 years, there would be noticeable changes from person to person from people born in the same area.

Not good with math, are ya?

 

[solarwave]

Then name the book!

I don't know what you're getting at with the Newtonian physics thing. Science isn't perfect, no one says that; mistakes are made and (much) more often than not, they are rectified within a reasonable time frame.

I can't name a book, but I havn't read most books so that doesn't prove I'm wrong. It isn't beyond imagination to think what I am saying is possible though.