Noahs ark

[karen freeinchristman]

Soooo... are you saying that oral traditions convey facts verbatim, or that they are subject to change and evolution?

I'm saying that oral traditions convey truths, not facts. I would say that those oral traditions were not always told in the exact same way in every tribe (for instance, in Exodus we read about the parting of the Red Sea, but in Psalm 105 which retells the Exodus story, the Red Sea does not figure). This could be one reason why there are sometimes discrepancies (or contradictions, if you like) between various renditions of stories in the OT (like the difference in numbers of animals God wants on the Ark).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I'm saying that oral traditions convey truths, not facts. I would say that those oral traditions were not always told in the exact same way in every tribe (for instance, in Exodus we read about the parting of the Red Sea, but in Psalm 105 which retells the Exodus story, the Red Sea does not figure). This could be one reason why there are sometimes discrepancies (or contradictions, if you like) between various renditions of stories in the OT (like the difference in numbers of animals God wants on the Ark).

Can you explain how truth is not contingent on fact?

 

[artybloke]

Can you explain how truth is not contingent on fact?

I can.

1) Moral truth is not factual. It is wrong to kill (truth), but people do kill (fact.) There may be some biological basis for "altruism," but moral truth as a whole is non-contingent. It's either true or it isn't, but you can't distil morality in a testtube.

2) "Fact" for the scientist and historian = an event or object observable using physical means only (that is, you can see, hear, touch, taste it; or at least you potentially can, or there is evidence that you could do so in the past.

3) This is not the case for great truths such as "God exists," "God is love," "Jesus is the Son of God,".

4) God Himself is non-contingent. He does not exist because something else exists; something else exists because God exists.

The last two points mean that God does not "exist" in any form that is observable by scientists: you can't find God by performing the right experiment, but only through faith. And yet Christians do believe that God does exist - as Spirit, as the Spirit of Creation, but not as something you can distil in a testtube.

The Bible was written at a time when science wasn't even in its infancy, but people told stories to teach themselves the great spiritual and moral truths. It's how you teach children to behave, too, isn't it? You tell them stories. Little Red Riding Hood, the Narnia stories: they're all ways of teaching truths.

Antybloke, are you saying that Jesus was JUST a man and couldn't perform miracles?

Whether he performed miracles or not has nothing to do with his divinity. Elijah, among others, also performed miracles, according to the OT.

What I'm saying is that while he was on earth, he never once stepped out of his humanity and used his divinity either to get himself out of a sticky situation (like, say, the crucifixion) or to trump an opponent's argument (which would be unbelievably petty anyway.) I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't always divine, just that He was always human.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Artybloke... thanks for the truth/;fact dichotomy... however, as relevent to THIS thread... I don't see how the story of the Flood can relate to Truth UNLESS it relates to FACT

 

[artybloke]

Well -whether a flood did or did not occur (whether the story was even based on a real historical (but not worldwide) flood - has nothing to do with the truths that the story of the flood are meant to convey.

Whether those "truths" are actually true for all time, or just contingent on the society that told the story, is another thing, of course, and fact might come into that. But history as such has nothing to do with whether the story of the flood is true or false.

Whether the flood happened or is a myth is irrelevant to its truth value.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well -whether a flood did or did not occur (whether the story was even based on a real historical (but not worldwide) flood - has nothing to do with the truths that the story of the flood are meant to convey.

Whether those "truths" are actually true for all time, or just contingent on the society that told the story, is another thing, of course, and fact might come into that. But history as such has nothing to do with whether the story of the flood is true or false.

Whether the flood happened or is a myth is irrelevant to its truth value.

OK... I see what you are saying here...

The actuality of a Flood or not does not change the value of the story, or the truth of the lesson it is meant to convey.

So, does that take away somewhat from those whose argument is that all of Genesis must be literally true, as you wouldn't put allegory at the start of a book?

 

[artybloke]

Who makes up these rules that "you wouldn't put allegory at the start of a book", anyway?

In fact, in all my years as a writer, I've never heard such a rule.

Sounds like a "rule" invented by literalists to me, certainly not by the creative writers/compilers of the Bible.

As well as which, I wouldn't say the Noaf stories are allegory; they're "myth" or "legend." A different genre altogether.

 

[TrustAndObey]

The problem with trying to fit our faith AROUND science, is that science if very fallible, and scripture is not.

On about page 138 of my college Biology book it is stated, matter of factly, that the world is 65 billion years old. About 72 pages back it said, matter of factly, that the world is about 112 billion years old.

I read all of that in one day and while sitting there over the course of about 3 hours, the earth aged 47 BILLION years.

Much of science is a huge guess. For instance, this story was in our local paper when I was younger and I remember my dad laughing hysterically:

Some scientists had come to study a huge cavernous hole and the scientists proclaimed that it took about 15 million years for the water to erode the rock away and form this huge hole in the earth.

A man came forward about six weeks later and contacted the editor to let him know that HIM and his father had created that huge hole with dynamite when he was about 15 (he was then in his thirties).

15 years verses 15 million.

The few scientists that try earnestly to debunk all the garbage we're hearing are called "nutjobs" (by Christians no less) and it's just truly sad to me.

Scientists are not God and they will never have full understanding about how our bodies work -OR- creation.

 

[artybloke]

The problem with trying to fit our faith AROUND science, is that science if very fallible, and scripture is not.

Scripture is every bit as fallible as any other book. And your attempt to use anecdotal evidence is pathetic, frankly.

The literalistic/positivistic interpretation is just that: an interpretation. It not only ignores the vast amounts of evidence against it, it makes a nonsense of scripture by focussing on the irrelevant.

Science, however, is constantly changing because it keeps recieving new information, and because it is constantly being checked and re-checked against the real world.

Either you're remembering the dates in your text-book wrong or frankly you're being economical with the truth, by the way. I don't believe you.

Unlike the fantasyland of creationism, that likes to bury its head in the sand and say nah-na-na-na because it can't cope with having its precious positivist worldview challenged,

 

[TrustAndObey]

Scripture is every bit as fallible as any other book. And your attempt to use anecdotal evidence is pathetic, frankly.

The literalistic/positivistic interpretation is just that: an interpretation. It not only ignores the vast amounts of evidence against it, it makes a nonsense of scripture by focussing on the irrelevant.

Science, however, is constantly changing because it keeps recieving new information, and because it is constantly being checked and re-checked against the real world.

Unlike the fantasyland of creationism, that likes to bury its head in the sand and say nah-na-na-na because it can't cope with having its precious positivist worldview challenged,

It's pathetic to show OBVIOUS errors in science? Come on Antybloke, is it truly pathetic or does it just laugh in the face of science and make a mockery of what so many people hold unto as their source of "truth"?

There are parts of the human brain that no one can explain. Right there in my text books it will say "we don't really know what this part of the brain does, and why it's necessary, but without it, a person dies."

HELLO! Obviously it's important, but scientists and doctors don't know why.

There have been HUGE blunders in science, documented cases of HUGE blunders. Yet you'll put your faith in something so unreliable.

I believe every word of the Bible.

Does that make me an idiot?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

On about page 138 of my college Biology book it is stated, matter of factly, that the world is 65 billion years old. About 72 pages back it said, matter of factly, that the world is about 112 billion years old.

Actually, I bet your biology text says nothin of the kind. Maybe if you studied more, you'd understand more about why science has a better track record regarding empirical data than scripture has.

I believe every word of the Bible.

Does that make me an idiot?

The Bible talks about unicorns, 4 legged birds, and clearly states that pi=3... soooo... if you believe in that stuff just because it appears in the Bible... well, i don't want to call you an idiot... but I'm not sure how else to finish this sentence

There have been HUGE blunders in science, documented cases of HUGE blunders. Yet you'll put your faith in something so unreliable.

Ah... crux time... sure... there HAVE been huge blunders in science... but heres the kicker... what has identified them as blunders? The Bible, or science?

In fact, if you can identify for me one documented example of a major scientific blunder that has been proved incorrect by the Bible, rather than by better, more precise science... I solemnly swear never to post anything that suggests the Bible is not 100% literally true ever again

 

[LoG]

Science, however, is constantly changing because it keeps recieving new information, and because it is constantly being checked and re-checked against the real world.

That should tell you that the truth is not in the scientific view simply because they do not have all the information as yet. The ultimate truth of the flood or creation cannot be discerned by those who rely on facts or the interpretation of them to determine their view. Your statement makes creation and flood views just as plausible with what you are admitting.

It is hypocritical to condemn those of us who choose to believe God when you have no idea what the truth actually is.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That should tell you that the truth is not in the scientific view simply because they do not have all the information as yet. The ultimate truth of the flood or creation cannot be discerned by those who rely on facts or the interpretation of them to determine their view. Your statement makes creation and flood views just as plausible with what you are admitting.

It is hypocritical to condemn those of us who choose to believe God when you have no idea what the truth actually is.

Um... well ACTUALLY... While science often changes what is considered to be the most likely correct information... this is more of a refining of the avilable data, rather than a complete change...

like finely focusing the image from a slide projector, rather than completely changing the image...

So, while it is POSSIBLE that science is totally wrong and the Global Noah Flood really did happen exactly the way the Bible says... its REALLY unlikely.

Unless you can offer a realistic explanation to explain all the scientific observations that would seem to contradict the Flood story.

Personally, I'd be much more incluined to accept the idea of a Global Flood if someone could come up with a reasonable explanation of where all the water came from and went to

 

[LoG]

Personally, I'd be much more incluined to accept the idea of a Global Flood if someone could come up with a reasonable explanation of where all the water came from and went to

Well, that is easy enough. Take a look at this page and some of the links from it.

Flood-Geology

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Well, that is easy enough. Take a look at this page and some of the links from it.

Flood-Geology

I've followed many links to many sites in the hope of finding some sort of reasonable explanation of where all the water came from/went... none have come near to answering the question. Care to provide me the 5 second synopsis of the site you are linking lest I embark on another wild goose chase?

 

[LoG]

I've followed many links to many sites in the hope of finding some sort of reasonable explanation of where all the water came from/went... none have come near to answering the question. Care to provide me the 5 second synopsis of the site you are linking lest I embark on another wild goose chase?

The page I linked to, tells where the water came from and went to. The links off of that page give supporting evidence.

No AIG "water canopies", no Godidit theologies, no Flood denials, just scripture and science combined to come up with a workable flood model.

Their Statement of Faith and Mission

 

[karen freeinchristman]

The page I linked to, tells where the water came from and went to. The links off of that page give supporting evidence.

No AIG "water canopies", no Godidit theologies, no Flood denials, just scripture and science combined to come up with a workable flood model.

Their Statement of Faith and Mission

Wow, thanks for posting that link, I found it very interesting! I'm not saying I agree with it, but it was very interesting all the same!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Careful parsing of the above passage indicates that great amounts of water were already being added to the Earth's seas at least seven days before the rains even began. This means that sea level was already rapidly rising; flooding low lying coastal areas and sending panicked low-land inhabitants inland from the rising seas. Meanwhile, presumably up on much higher ground, Noah and his family took shelter on the Ark and waited; the massive gopher wood vessel still firmly nested in its construction frame, unmovable and secure until the rising waters lifted it from its resting place.

From the site you linked... rather looks like a claim for supernatural water creation here...

This passage seems to indicate that, through some agency not clearly understood, the Lord caused some of the waters on the Earth to go underground, through some form of reconfiguration of the earth's geology. The reader will note that in the days of Adam the vegetation of the Earth was watered by a mist that came up out of the ground:

more devine intervention...

But, and here is the real crux as far as I'm concerned, the website in question doesn't attempt to explain where al that water supposedly went!

 

[Tkjjc89]

Irrelevant without evidence that they happened as is said in the Bible. If you can come up with a theory that explains the lack of evidence that the flood occured that can be observed empirically, then you'll win an immediate Nobel Prize.

Until then, it's a story with a lot of profound truth in it. It isn't historical fact.

There might be ALOT of people today that take for granted the Word of God, and think it is made up of fairy-tales and stories. Trust me, I was actually amazed that in the Republican Debates here in the States, that 3 of the candidates, actually believed in CREATION. Not evolution. Boy were they made fun of. In the media, and from their own couterparts.
It says in the Bible that we are to take that which we can't know and see, upon faith that it is true, as God is not the author of a LIE.
If one part of the Bible, which is the (inspired by the Holy Spirit Word of God) can't be trusted, and for people to "think" God is limited on how the mysteries of the universe, seems to be nothing more than a limitation on God. Heaven forbid. I take that which was written down, passed through the test of time, proven true by the prophets, fullfilled, and continuing so, to be the

ABSOLUTE WORD OF GOD, no stories, no fairytales, no LIES!

 

[LoG]

From the site you linked... rather looks like a claim for supernatural water creation here...more devine intervention...

May I respectfully suggest to reread the page? He states clearly where the water was coming from during that week and it wasn't supernatural.

But, and here is the real crux as far as I'm concerned, the website in question doesn't attempt to explain where al that water supposedly went!

That would be incorrect. He does explain it quite well. Again, reread the page.