The story of Noah's Ark, fiction?

[Calminian]

No, they recognise that witness statements do not overide all the other evidence.

In fact, most of the "biblical evidence" isn't even witness statements, but hearsay, which isn't admissible in any court.

I had a feeling you didn't understand the difference between hearsay and corroborative testimonial evidence.

Actually in a court of law, if enough witnesses corroborate and tell a story different from what some scientific evidence says, they will then start to question their interpretation of the science. Perhaps they need to start investigating the possibility of planted evidence, or other scenarios. But no court in the land is going to ignore several eye-witness testimonies in light of some scientific evidence. Fortunately these corroborate most of the time. In the case of the history of the world, they don't.

 

[Calminian]

They those at my seminary, but only the first two sections. They're called "Into to Biblical Studies 1" and Intro to Biblical Studies 2".

Being that it's your seminary, that's not hard to believe!

 

[Calminian]

No, no one actually saw Christ being raised from the dead. They witnessed the risen Christ, but the dynamic of the resurrection was without witness. Therefore, by nature of its supernatural quality, all accounts of the ressurection are necessarily metaphorical. This, of course, does not mean that such did not "happen." However, when speaking about the accounts of the event itself, it is impossible to speak literally about the resurrection, as it is completely and necessarily beyond the scope of natural phenomenon.

Unfortunately this does logically follow from TE thinking. Although I'm not sure why you still get to post in an all christian forum. Believe in the resurrection is an essential.

 

[depthdeception]

There's a basic flaw in reasoning here. The beliefs you cite are not for the most part from passed-down legends, but rather from false inferences made from direct observations of nature. But they couldn't have inferred these stories of floods and dragons and gardens and snakes with legs from anything they observed in nature. They knew of them solely from passed-down legends, drawings, sculptures, etc.. The fact that these legends and drawings have cross cultural corroboration is powerful evidence of a common source.

Yes, I agree that the content of the two examples are different. However, the methodological point is similar. While I agree that a common source for this information is probable, this potential fact does not establish that the content of the common source actualy occurred. As with my illustration of the nature of the earth, an idea that is disseminated can become part of the communal "knowledge" without the object of the knowledge (i.e., the "flatness of the earth" or the "actuality of the flood") being verified or significantly substantiated. Perhaps a powerful leader of some ancient people invented the story and broadcast it throughout his tribes, who then passed it on throughout generations. Without any documentation or other verifiable proof, the existence of the story would have substantiated the "fact" of the event to those hearing the story, regardless of whether the even actually happened in reality.

 

[depthdeception]

Unfortunately this does logically follow from TE thinking. Although I'm not sure why you still get to post in an all christian forum. Believe in the resurrection is an essential.

What are you talking about? I completely affirm the reality of the resurrection. However, when speaking about it, it is impossible that anyone could use anything but metaphorical language. For after all, as the resurrection is ontically and epistemically outside of human experience, our descriptions of the resurrection can never be literal. As I said before, though, this does not mean that it didn't happen. I am merely pointing out that our language concerning the resurrection will always and necessarily be metaphorical.

 

[david_x]

I was just goin to say somthin about that whole from one original place but you beat me to it!

Ok no one saw the resurection. But if you see a resurected body i hope you can assume that there was a resurection.

 

[depthdeception]

Ok no one saw the resurection. But if you see a resurected body i hope you can assume that there was a resurection.

It's funny how Christians will grant this form of circumstantial evidence, but when confronted with something similar (but wholly natural--doesn't even touch the supernatural) like the Big Bang, they raise their hands in protest about not having "proof."

 

[PaladinValer]

Nothing to Prove the RESERECTION!

1. It is "resurrection"
2. That's exactly my point. We can prove whether or not there was a flood. A resurrection is something that is beyond the scope of science. It cannot be prove it is possible and there is nothing that can prove it impossible.

Of cource you mean besides dozens of eye witness accounts, our being able to talk to God thrugh the risen Christ, and the BIBLE!

Of course, you do realize that's circular reasoning, and therefore an illogical and fallacous argument.

Read my 2.

Of cource there was a flood! It has been reported in every cultural history! Hawaii, China, Indian, Native American, Catholic, Protestant, etc.

False and illogical, each for one aspect.

1. Flood stories are rare in Africa and in a few other places of the world.
2. Just because many places do have stories of a Deluge doesn't mean they all occurred at the same time. That's an assumption that science has proven wrong.

Try to stop the world from spinning before you prove that God was a liar!

Sorry, but since the physical evidence proves me right, then you must be the one at fault.

Literalism truly is the bane of Christianity.

 

[ebia]

I had a feeling you didn't understand the difference between hearsay and corroborative testimonial evidence.

Most of the bible is NOT eye witness evidence - it is at best a jounalists account of what they eye witnesses saw. Of the gospels, only St John's is plausible primarily eyewitness material - though it singularly doesn't claim to be written by an eye witness. St Paul's accounts of his experiences would be eye witness accounts. The Noah story most certainly is not - or is the Illiad also an eyewitness account.

Actually in a court of law, if enough witnesses corroborate and tell a story different from what some scientific evidence says, they will then start to question their interpretation of the science.

A court of law is not qualified to determine the reliability of scientific understanding.

 

[depthdeception]

Literalism truly is the bane of Christianity.

Wisdom overflows from your mouth like an ocean, oh great one!

 

[PaladinValer]

Wisdom overflows from your mouth like an ocean, oh great one!

**Cleans up his mess**

Sorry, but that was today's stew, not my wisdom

Whose then? Why, in the end, God's of course!

 

[Calminian]

What are you talking about? I completely affirm the reality of the resurrection. However, when speaking about it, it is impossible that anyone could use anything but metaphorical language.

Really? So you what do you think this real event of Christ physically dying for our sins and physically rising from the dead in 3 days was saying metaphorically?

For after all, as the resurrection is ontically and epistemically outside of human experience,

It wasn’t outside the experience of the apostles nor the 500 that viewed the resurrected Christ. There were also later resurrections performed by Paul witnessed by many. Perhaps you’re are hung up on miracles. Do you feel miracles are somehow not as real as natural events?

our descriptions of the resurrection can never be literal.

This is getting interesting. Which descriptions of the resurrection account do you feel are not literal? Or is it all not literal?

As I said before, though, this does not mean that it didn't happen.

But that’s not the question. Did it happen in the real historical sense it was described by the gospel writers? Or was it merely a metaphorical way of describing a spiritual resurrection?

I am merely pointing out that our language concerning the resurrection will always and necessarily be metaphorical.

Your language might. The gospel writers spoke if it as real and physical and historical. You seem to be saying it was not. Or that it was and wasn't at the same time. I'm not speaking to John Kerry am I?

Can you describe what you believe the resurrection really was?

 

[Calminian]

Ok no one saw the resurection. But if you see a resurected body i hope you can assume that there was a resurection.

It's funny how Christians will grant this form of circumstantial evidence, but when confronted with something similar (but wholly natural--doesn't even touch the supernatural) like the Big Bang, they raise their hands in protest about not having "proof."

Here we go again. Why do you feel the natural is somehow more real than the supernatural. You believe you are more real than God?

The BB is nothing more that a naturalistic speculation about origins. One could also speculate about a natural explanation for Christ appearing to witnesses after the resurrection. They might say he was never crucified in the first place—that he switched places with someone else. One could come up with a very viable naturalistic theory about the wine Jesus created. It would even be testable and repeatable. Would that disprove the His first miracle?

This is very poor reasoning.

 

[Calminian]

2. That's exactly my point. We can prove whether or not there was a flood. A resurrection is something that is beyond the scope of science. It cannot be prove it is possible and there is nothing that can prove it impossible.

We can perhaps prove whether a natural flood occurred, but not a supernatural one. This is where naturalists, especially theistic naturalists, get confused. We have no supernaturally caused sustained and ended floods to compare. We don’t know the details of any of the mechanisms both natural and supernatural that God used. Yet we arrogantly claim we know exactly how the aftermath of the great Genesis flood would look. It never ceases to amaze me.

In Genesis we have four great worldwide miracles. The creation, curse, flood and confusion of the languages. We know precious little of the details, yet we think we can tell God exactly what the effects of those details should look like.

Literalism truly is the bane of Christianity.

You’re really out of touch with the issue. YECs are not literalists. They are exegists meaning they let the context inform us as to what the author intended to convey (and whether they are speaking literally or not). You are eisegists. You read outside ideas into the Bible and decide from that what is literal and what is not. By this method any book can be called inerrant. It basically renders the text meaningless.

 

[ebia]

We can perhaps prove whether a natural flood occurred, but not a supernatural one. This is where naturalists, especially theistic naturalists, get confused. We have no supernaturally caused sustained and ended floods to compare. We don’t know the details of any of the mechanisms both natural and supernatural that God used. Yet we arrogantly claim we know exactly how the aftermath of the great Genesis flood would look. It never ceases to amaze me.

Without knowing the details we don't know exactly what all the effects would be, but we can be pretty certain about some of the effects that entirely covering the earth within the last 5000 years would have had, and none of those indicators occur. On the contrary, there are plenty of things that we do find that are incompatible with a recent global flood, unless God deliberately covered things up and made it look like a flood had never happened. So many different things, that we can't possibly be mistaken about all of them.

 

[Calminian]

Without knowing the details we don't know exactly what all the effects would be, but we can be pretty certain about some of the effects that entirely covering the earth within the last 5000 years would have had, and none of those indicators occur.

There are creationists much more able to speak to the than me. I can't say whether this is true or not.

I can say God may have had to perform several miracles immediately after the flood that were necessary to make the land sustainable for animals to live off immediately after exiting the ark. There is also the issue of the rainbow that intrigues me. What modifications did God have to make to his creation to cause the phenomenon of rainbows after rain? What affect would these things have on the evidence? Naturalists would never consider such things. Perhaps these miraculous events affected the evidence in a way that is confusing them. There is also the issue of mountains and valleys being altered miraculously and the possibility of billions of tons of water being poofed out of existence in order for the waters to recede quickly enough. And this may just be the tip of the iceberg.

With all these unknown variables it's easy for me to see why natural expectation might not be fulfilled. As to your technical claims I'm unfortunately not qualified to comment. I certainly wish I could.

On the contrary, there are plenty of things that we do find that are incompatible with a recent global flood, unless God deliberately covered things up and made it look like a flood had never happened. So many different things, that we can't possibly be mistaken about all of them.

Considering all the possible supernatural interventions such an event may require I see no need of a deliberate cover up. The details are just too vague.

Theistic evolution would be a much greater cover up as it would actually mean God is tricking atheists into believing that God is not necessary for the existence of the universe—not to mention tricking all those theologians in the pre-scientific age with the explicit grammar of Genesis, falsely leading them to believe the flood was a global event. The deception TEs must answer for dwarfs that of YECs.

 

[ebia]

There are creationists much more able to speak to the than me. I can't say whether this is true or not.

I can say God may have had to perform several miracles immediately after the flood that were necessary to make the land sustainable for animals to live off immediately after exiting the ark. There is also the issue of the rainbow that intrigues me. What modifications did God have to make to his creation to cause the phenomenon of rainbows after rain? What affect would these things have on the evidence? Naturalists would never consider such things. Perhaps these miraculous events affected the evidence in a way that is confusing them. There is also the issue of mountains and valleys being altered miraculously and the possibility of billions of tons of water being poofed out of existence in order for the waters to recede quickly enough. And this may just be the tip of the iceberg.

All these, if they really happened, create MORE things that should show up, not less.

Considering all the possible supernatural interventions such an event may require I see no need of a deliberate cover up. The details are just too vague.

There are several huge 'details' that are far from vague. However they occured, they couldn't avoid leaving impacts that we see are simply not there.

Theistic evolution would be a much greater cover up as it would actually mean God is tricking atheists into believing that God is not necessary for the existence of the universe—

That simply does not follow. If any atheists disbelieve in God because of evolution it is because of the faulty claim by some segments of the Christian community that evolution is not compatible with the bible.

not to mention tricking all those theologians in the pre-scientific age with the explicit grammar of Genesis, falsely leading them to believe the flood was a global event.

I don't think you want to go down this route - if God is at fault for every misconception people have derived from the bible, then the details fo the creation story is the least of his worries. The fact is that the bible does not imply a modern historical perspective to Genesis, and the idea that it does is a relatively modern invention held to by a relatively small number of people.

 

[Calminian]

That simply does not follow. If any atheists disbelieve in God because of evolution it is because of the faulty claim by some segments of the Christian community that evolution is not compatible with the bible.

They certainly do disbelieve because of evolution. They look at the text as see it for what it is. Then they look to christians like you that don't believe it either.

What about modern liberal hebrew scholars? What reason do they have for agreeing with YECs. They don't believe it, but they agree that's what the author meant.

I don't think you want to go down this route

Oh I think I do!

if God is at fault for every misconception people have derived from the bible, then the details fo the creation story is the least of his worries. The fact is that the bible does not imply a modern historical perspective to Genesis,

Modern historical perspective?

and the idea that it does is a relatively modern invention held to by a relatively small number of people.

Obviously this is a confusing way to say you don't believe the authors intended their text to be considered historical narrative. Again atheists don't buy it for a minute. Nor do hebrew scholars. The genealogies alone show this to be nonsense. You believe it for one reason. You’re forcing the text to agree with your presuppositions about origins. YECs hebrew scholars and atheists don't have the same temptation.

 

[ebia]

They certainly do disbelieve because of evolution. They look at the text as see it for what it is. Then they look to christians like you that don't believe it either.

You seem a bit confused - I don't believe what? I do believe in God, and I do believe in the truth of the Genesis story. I don't believe the Genesis story is historical, but that is not necessary to believe in God.

You are the ones presenting people with a false dichotomy: believe in something you prove to be false, or disbelieve in God entirely.

What about modern liberal hebrew scholars? What reason do they have for agreeing with YECs. They don't believe it, but they agree that's what the author meant.

You would have to ask them.

Oh I think I do!

Ok, then in that case your God is reponsible for misleading a whole lot of people. It doesn't really matter which lot are being mislead - one lot must be. So your God is a liar. Is that what you really meant?

Modern historical perspective?

The clear distinction between factual history and mythical story is a relatively modern concept.

Obviously this is a confusing way to say you don't believe the authors intended their text to be considered historical narrative.

I fail to see how they could have intended their text to be a genre that did not yet exist.

Again atheists don't buy it for a minute.

Some do. Some don't. Most haven't even considered it. But then, most athiests don't believe in God, so I presume that you don't really consider their opinion to be infallible anyway.

Nor do hebrew scholars. The genealogies alone show this to be nonsense.

They show nothing of the sort. Geneologies linking mythical figures of the past to real figures of the present are common in ancient literature.

You believe it for one reason. You’re forcing the text to agree with your presuppositions about origins.

Your (as it happens) inaccurate perception of my motivation is irrelevent to the truth (or otherwise) of my argument.

 

[artybloke]

This is what depthdeception said:

I completely affirm the reality of the resurrection. However, when speaking about it, it is impossible that anyone could use anything but metaphorical language.

This is Calminian's misunderstanding of it:

Really? So you what do you think this real event of Christ physically dying for our sins and physically rising from the dead in 3 days was saying metaphorically?

There's a big brick wall of misunderstanding here. I'm not even sure it's resolvable. The idea in Calminian's head that seems unshakeable seems to be that if I say something is "metaphorical" I'm denying its reality. Depthdeception and others like myself don't see it that way at all. I think Calminian and others assume something about language that depthdeception and others including myself don't. That there is a "formal equivalence" between the world and the words used to describe it. That language is, in other words, a clear glass through which we can understand what's really happening.

Myself, I think that it's more like a piece of frosted glass; or maybe the "glass darkly" of St Paul. In his day, mirrors were made of polished glass and reflected at most 50% of what they saw, and clear glass was virtually unknown. So his insight was that we could only see reality partially, because there was always this frosted glass in front of our face. So we can't help but see the world metaphorically; we have to find images and pictures for what we see that approximate but are not exact descriptions of what we see.

This is true of all reality, but it is especially true of those "special" events that we use the metaphor of "supernatural" for (though "natural" is and inherently metaphorical a category as "supernatural.") Miracle stories attach to all kinds of people, not just to Jesus; are the miracles of the Buddha factual? No Buddhist would say it mattered; what matters is what they mean.

So when the Bible describes the resurection through the various stories of the empty tomb, it's describing an event that it it cannot put into words except through metaphor. How else can you describe this strange event except through telling stories about it? It's something that has changed your life, that has created a whole number of changed lives, there is a strange new power in your life, and there are all these rumours and stories circulating about empty tombs, encounters and visions. Nowhere in the Bible does it even attempt to give some kind of naturalistic explanation for this event, because the writers know how strange and crucial it is. They tell stories about it. Are those stories all factual? I don't know; but I know that the tradition of the resurection is so strong from St Paul to the end of the New Testament that something very powerful and beyond explanation happened.

Metaphors, stories, poems, myths, legends are attempts to see a little clearer through the frosted glass; they are not lies. Nobody but the most thoroughgoing post-modernist would deny there is a reality behind the stories and metaphors. But that reality is ultimately a mystery, and our attempts at piercing that cloud of unknowing between us and God are often prompted by fear of that mystery. Accepting that we are fallible, that a human language cannot deal with divine events (like the resurection) is surely the beginning of wisdom.