Noah's Ark

[lesliedellow]

Science doesn't seem to be hampered by vast timescales. They report no missing links or processes and can account for even the smallest change.

That is just not true. In fact, I thought that even creationists had got around to admitting that "even the smallest changes" do happen. One step forward and two steps backward, it would seem.

 

[Obliquinaut]

The narrative is presented as an actual event, not allegory, therefore I believe it was an actual event.

Stephen King's book "The Shining" is written as an event, not allegory. However it is not a real event. (And is there a place in Genesis where it explicitly says "This story is 100% actual and really happened"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The narrative is presented as an actual event, not allegory, therefore I believe it was an actual event.

So are many parables. The Good Samaritan is such an example.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Stephen King's book "The Shining" is written as an event, not allegory. However it is not a real event. (And is there a place in Genesis where it explicitly says "This story is 100% actual and really happened"?

So "The Shining" won't be found in the fiction section?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Evolution must explain the origin of life

No it doesn't. The two are unrelated.

I wish Creationists would at least be willing to use the terminology CORRECTLY rather than making up their own (erroneous) definitions for the technical terms and then arguing against the erroneous definitions.

But, alas, that is apparently impossible for Creationists to do.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So are many parables. The Good Samaritan is such an example.

There's nothing unusual about a person helping another who is in trouble.

Parables are mainly taken from real life experiences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So "The Shining" won't be found in the fiction section?

The Bible is found in the same place as the Koran and the Vedas. Do you take those other two seriously?

 

[Obliquinaut]

It's as good an explanation as any.

Certainly for someone who fancies themselves superior to others yet probably doesn't want to do the heavy lifting of introspection and study.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's nothing unusual about a person helping another who is in trouble.

Parables are mainly taken from real life experiences.

Correct. Parables could be real life experiences. The flood is an example of myth or allegory.

Now we are getting somewhere. Neither happened, they both get a message across.

 

[Obliquinaut]

So "The Shining" won't be found in the fiction section?

OH, so you're saying that the Bible is TRUE because Barnes and Noble DOESN'T put it in the Fiction section?

Wow! (How did the Church Fathers know it was true millennia before B&N existed? Such are the mysteries of faith!)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Stephen King's book "The Shining" is written as an event, not allegory. However it is not a real event. (And is there a place in Genesis where it explicitly says "This story is 100% actual and really happened"?

...from my position, you're both right and wrong at the same time. Instead, I think that taking a "Conrad Hyers" approach to dealing with the nature of the narrative of early Genesis is more plausible as an explanation. This approach would be to see early Genesis as a Cosmogonic statement of theology written as a historical account rather than a literal, scientifically patterned history like we'd write today.

p.s. ...and I think this extends even to the first 11 chapters of Genesis, including the account(s) of Noah's Flood.

 

[lesliedellow]

This approach would be to see early Genesis as a Cosmogonic statement of theology written as a historical account

That is exactly what it is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OH, so you're saying that the Bible is TRUE because Barnes and Noble DOESN'T put it in the Fiction section?

Wow! (How did the Church Fathers know it was true millennia before B&N existed? Such are the mysteries of faith!)

The "church fathers" (the prophets) recorded it in an unbroken succession for thousands of years. A cursory reading will reveal that the story is for believers, not unbelievers. Yet here on the forums we have unbelievers acting as biblical scholars.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

...from my position, you're both right and wrong at the same time. Instead, I think that taking a "Conrad Hyers" approach to dealing with the nature of the narrative of early Genesis is more plausible as an explanation. This approach would be to see early Genesis as a Cosmogonic statement of theology written as a historical account rather than a literal, scientifically patterned history like we'd write today.

p.s. ...and I think this extends even to the first 11 chapters of Genesis, including the account(s) of Noah's Flood.

The flood story is a pretty extravagant way of telling people to separate themselves from the rest of evil mankind and place themselves under God's protection, while he 'sets things right'.

 

[lesliedellow]

The "church fathers" (the prophets) recorded it in an unbroken succession for thousands of years. A cursory reading will reveal that the story is for believers, not unbelievers. Yet here on the forums we have unbelievers acting as biblical scholars.

Leaving aside the fact that "church fathers" usually refers to theologians writing during the first four or five centuries of Christianity, there is a gap of several centuries between the return from exile and the birth of Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, that is an example of Clarke's Law.

Here's his third one ...

Wait!

Nevermind ... I just thought of a challenge!

 

[Obliquinaut]

The "church fathers" (the prophets) recorded it in an unbroken succession for thousands of years.

Huh. What about all that stuff in Church History, you know, where they went through and decreed certain books true and certain books false, etc. How many gospels were left out because they didn't make the cut?

A cursory reading will reveal that the story is for believers, not unbelievers.

Do you realize how absurd that statement is? I mean really. If God wants all to believe you CANNOT make it that his TRUE WORD is meant only for those who start off believing.

Yet here on the forums we have unbelievers acting as biblical scholars.

It IS possible to read the Bible and history of the Faith even without being a Believer. YOU may not like the conclusions that are drawn, but the appropriate response is NOT "Oh well, you don't believe just everything you read so of COURSE you don't believe the Bible, unbeliever!"

 

[Obliquinaut]

Leaving aside the fact that "church fathers" usually refers to theologians writing during the first four or five centuries of Christianity

THANK YOU! (That was how I meant it here but I didn't feel up to debating with OWG. Why pester the Faithful with standard Christian history stuff?)

 

[lesliedellow]

Never-mind ... I just thought of a challenge!

We await it with bated breath.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You are still asking strange questions.

You are conflating abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis is how the first life arose. It is similar but separate from evolution.

By 'conflating' a nut and a bolt the two, as one, make perfect sense.