The story of Noah's Ark, fiction?

[higgs2]

I would never! no one does. Except of cource God.
Plus i think you underestimate him.

What part of this do you not understand? Just because something is a myth doesn't mean it is false or that it is worthless.

Oh yes it does and i quote "ANY FICTISIOUS STORY, PERSON, OR THING."
-Webster's dictionary
If that doesn't settle that: story- fictisious narritive shorter than a novel.
2- a falsehood!

Don't assume you know everything about english!

Um. Try this: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary (Mirriam-webster dictionary online.) Not sure what "webster's dictionary" you could be using, but you need to look at all of the entries.

 

[ebia]

Um. Try this: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary (Mirriam-webster dictionary online.) Not sure what "webster's dictionary" you could be using, but you need to look at all of the entries.

The link doesn't work.

 

[higgs2]

The link doesn't work.

sorry, try this: http://www.m-w.com/

 

[FreezBee]

The Bibles a myth now. (am i not in the Christian only section???)

Sorry for interferring, but just to clear up a few things:

In common language, the word "myth" is used in a very vague manner; but technically it's mostly used about a story that projects the divine plane into the human world, eternity into temporality.

The creation story in Genesis 1 works in this way. Note the 7 day creation week. Now, in the "real" world there was last week, this week, next week - for ever and ever. The creation story does not say that God created the world in any specific week, it simply states God as the creator in any week - I wasn't around 6,000 years ago, but I still count as part of God's creation. By tieing the creation history to be a literal story of what happened during some specific week, the eternity of God is destroyed, and the point of the story is missed.

Many Christians who are true believers unfortunately have deceived themself into having to think of the creation and flood stories in Genesis as literal history, which unfortunately makes them not see that these stories do not compete with modern science (they have nothing to do with it!), and what might be worse, these Christians may come to loose sight of the meaning of these stories by trying to reduce them to the scientific reports that they are not and cannot be.

Ok, just my 0.02$ - please continue your discussion.


- FreezBee

 

[depthdeception]

Try buying a decent dictionary. Or accept that dictionary definitions are not the whole picture when technical words are used correctly (yes, myth IS a technical word). Better still, do both.

This is an important point. The usage of "myth" in literary studies carries a far different range of meanings than does "myth" in popular language. It's like the word "logos." Popularly and commonly, "logos" can mean "word," etc. However, when used in Christological studies, "Logos" is imbued with an entirely different range of meanings. Moreover, these meanings are so precise that they take a common word like "logos" and use it to refer to the second person of the Godhead. This, of course, is why "logos", in theological studies and contexts", should not be used when referring to the Scriptures. After all, if one assumes the technical, Christological meanings of the word "logos," it becomes quite nonsensical when used also in reference to the Scriptures.

 

[depthdeception]

The creation story in Genesis 1 works in this way. Note the 7 day creation week. Now, in the "real" world there was last week, this week, next week - for ever and ever. The creation story does not say that God created the world in any specific week, it simply states God as the creator in any week - I wasn't around 6,000 years ago, but I still count as part of God's creation. By tieing the creation history to be a literal story of what happened during some specific week, the eternity of God is destroyed, and the point of the story is missed.

Many Christians who are true believers unfortunately have deceived themself into having to think of the creation and flood stories in Genesis as literal history, which unfortunately makes them not see that these stories do not compete with modern science (they have nothing to do with it!), and what might be worse, these Christians may come to loose sight of the meaning of these stories by trying to reduce them to the scientific reports that they are not and cannot be.

Ok, just my 0.02$ - please continue your discussion.


- FreezBee

Wonderful, cogent post!

 

[david_x]

Many Christians who are true believers unfortunately have deceived themself into having to think of the creation and flood stories in Genesis as literal history, which unfortunately makes them not see that these stories do not compete with modern science (they have nothing to do with it!), and what might be worse, these Christians may come to loose sight of the meaning of these stories by trying to reduce them to the scientific reports that they are not and cannot be.

If one does not eccept part of the story as literal, how can the whole thing be literal! I must admit that a world destroyng flood is among the least of miracles.

I would like to apologive for the whole myth thing. I took the word wrong and flipped out. (i hope that falsehood is not what you implyed)

 

[The Lady Kate]

If one does not eccept part of the story as literal, how can the whole thing be literal!

It's not. That's the point.

 

[Mathematician]

After looking at all the aspects of the story of Noah's Ark, and I find it to be overall fiction. There are many things that just are a bit odd to me. And no one has yet been able to give me a straight answer for the questions I have about it. So yeah, I have basically so far concluded it to be no more than mythology.

I know this topic is probably nothing new, but I was just wondering if anyone here has an explanation...

What are your questions? I'll give you straight answers.

 

[Mathematician]

For untold millenia, people thought the world was flat

That's false. Prove it.

 

[PaladinValer]

I would never!

Yet you do constantly, as we prove over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

no one does. Except of cource God.
Plus i think you underestimate him.

Oh of COURSE! Get caught again and put the pressure on someone else. You are very good at playing the escape artist. Unfortunately, it doesn't work on me, nor is it fooling anyone else here.

Oh yes it does and i quote "ANY FICTISIOUS STORY, PERSON, OR THING."
-Webster's dictionary
If that doesn't settle that: story- fictisious narritive shorter than a novel.
2- a falsehood!

Nice lie. Let's see what it truthfully says instead of your inaccurate opinion:

Main Entry: myth javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?myth0001.wav=myth')
Pronunciation: 'mith
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek mythos
1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory.
2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion
3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4 : the whole body of myths
Don't assume you know everything about english!

We seem to more than you, however.

And in 2b, do note the "or." It doesn't say "and," but "or." As for 4, it is of no consequence since it is a circular argument.

yes, but most often a myth implys falese

The dictionary says otherwise. Your opinion of what you think it means is not the truth of what it means.

 

[david_x]

Sorry, but Josh McDowell's arguments are rather superficial.

Are you saying his arguements are obvious?

And in 2b, do note the "or." It doesn't say "and," but "or."

are you saying there's a meaningful difference between society and segment of sosciety? (just tryin' to figure out what you mean, not sarcastic)

I disagree with all the meanings of the word not just the ones i posted. it is irrational to think the Bible is allegory, somthin' that explains truth, or ficticious. does God say that he is telling a parable? If God does not say it's just a story, or myth, why would we believe it is. After all, we know man to lie, has God ever lied?

 

[sampson x]

All right, I think I should introduce myself. I'm sampson x and I'm david_x's friend. Okay, now you're all gonna hate me, but that's okay, I just have to say what I have to say.

Whether we believe the story of the flood is fiction, myth, parable, or an actual event, God put it on someone's heart and it is in the Bible, which is God's Word, so it is true. Whether you believe 2+2= 0, 3, or 5, the answer is 4. It doesn't matter what we believe, truth is truth. "Spiritually or Factually, or both?" you ask. I would answer, "Yes."

Just because we've never seen a million dollars doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because we can't explain how Jesus healed the blind man or brought Lazarus back to life doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because we can't understand how God could flood the whole world doesn't mean it didn't happen. Hey, I don't understand the higher concepts of Calculus yet; I can't even name them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. We must take these things by Faith!

God himself cannot be proven, because if he could, then we wouldn't need faith, which would mean that we couldn't fulfill any of the requirements to get into heaven (ahem, Faith!), which would make our situation pretty bleak... ((For a slightly different angle on this argument, read Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or get the DVD of the movie and watch the bonus clip on what the guide says about God.))

So, we shouldn't have to prove that the Flood happened to know it did.

 

[ebia]

Are you saying his arguements are obvious?

No, I'm saying that they are superficial. They look ok on the surface, but if you stop and actually think about them and delve into the material they rely on, they aren't really convincing (unless you are already convinced of the conclusions he arrives at anyway).

I disagree with all the meanings of the word not just the ones i posted. it is irrational to think the Bible is allegory, somthin' that explains truth, or ficticious.

It is certainly not irrational to think that.

does God say that he is telling a parable? If God does not say it's just a story, or myth, why would we believe it is.

Because it's structure looks like myth, allegory and liturgy. And because the great truths of ancient peoples are almost always told through such stories.

There is absolutely no basis for assuming that something is literal and factual unless told otherwise. Such a view, that puts facts above other sorts of truth, is a product of your particular culture. But the bible was not written for your particular culture.

After all, we know man to lie, has God ever lied?

No-one is accusing God of lying. Stories are not lies.

 

[sampson x]

No, I'm saying that they are superficial. They look ok on the surface, but if you stop and actually think about them and delve into the material they rely on, they aren't really convincing (unless you are already convinced of the conclusions he arrives at anyway).

Hmm...Interesting. I've never read his book, but I've seen him in person, and I've heard his testimony. Josh Mcdowell went through all that trouble of collecting facts and truths to Prove the Bilbe WRONG!!!Instead, it all brought him to Christ! Now, if that doesn't show something about the depth of his studies, than I don't know what will.

 

[gluadys]

All right, I think I should introduce myself. I'm sampson x and I'm david_x's friend. Okay, now you're all gonna hate me, but that's okay, I just have to say what I have to say.

Oh we don't do hate here sampson. Just heated disagreement. OK?

Whether we believe the story of the flood is fiction, myth, parable, or an actual event, God put it on someone's heart and it is in the Bible, which is God's Word, so it is true. Whether you believe 2+2= 0, 3, or 5, the answer is 4. It doesn't matter what we believe, truth is truth. "Spiritually or Factually, or both?" you ask. I would answer, "Yes."

The real problem with the flood is not that there is no factual evidence in its favour. It is that there is hard evidence that it could not be a global flood.

Just because we've never seen a million dollars doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because we can't explain how Jesus healed the blind man or brought Lazarus back to life doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because we can't understand how God could flood the whole world doesn't mean it didn't happen. Hey, I don't understand the higher concepts of Calculus yet; I can't even name them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. We must take these things by Faith!

You are on the right track. Just because we see no evidence that something exists or that something happened, doesn't mean that it does not exist or that it did not happen.

But that's not the problem with the flood. In that case we do have evidence which makes it clear that a global flood never occurred. This is different from not having evidence that it did occur. If we just did not have evidence, we could say, well it still could have happened. But the evidence we have just could not exist at all if the flood had been global. So we have to conclude that it was not.

God himself cannot be proven, because if he could, then we wouldn't need faith, which would mean that we couldn't fulfill any of the requirements to get into heaven (ahem, Faith!), which would make our situation pretty bleak... ((For a slightly different angle on this argument, read Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, or get the DVD of the movie and watch the bonus clip on what the guide says about God.))

Amen. And i must get that book. Everyone I know recommends it.

So, we shouldn't have to prove that the Flood happened to know it did.

Right. And no one is suggesting a flood did not happen. Only that it did not cover the whole planet.

What you need to show for that is a way for the contra-evidence to exist when it could not exist through a global flood. To take just one example: how were spider tracks in desert dust made and preserved in the middle of a flood?

 

[ebia]

Hmm...Interesting. I've never read his book, but I've seen him in person, and I've heard his testimony. Josh Mcdowell went through all that trouble of collecting facts and truths to Prove the Bilbe WRONG!!!Instead, it all brought him to Christ! Now, if that doesn't show something about the depth of his studies, than I don't know what will.

So he says. It is perhaps evidence that he collected evidence & arguments that were enough to persuade himself. They may even persuade some others. That doesn't make them sound arguments. Everybody I've ever met that has read any of his books has already been Christian anyway, and has agreed with him no more at the end than they did at the beginning, sometimes less.

 

[ebia]

Amen. And i must get that book. Everyone I know recommends it.

You've never read Hitchhikers Guide?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

it is irrational to think the Bible is allegory, somthin' that explains truth, or ficticious. does God say that he is telling a parable? If God does not say it's just a story, or myth, why would we believe it is. After all, we know man to lie, has God ever lied?

Okay, so let's look at Ezekiel 16. This must be literal, right? After all, the next chapter is clearly marked as parable, but this chapter isn't. Since God doesn't lie, it must be literal? Or, is it more complicated than you've stated above?

Just because we've never seen a million dollars doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because we can't explain how Jesus healed the blind man or brought Lazarus back to life doesn't mean they didn't happen. Just because we can't understand how God could flood the whole world doesn't mean it didn't happen.

And just because it's hard to imagine that the woman named Jerusalem spoken of in Ezekiel 16 is a literal woman, that doesn't mean it isn't literally true. Just because we can't understand how Jerusalem could be both a city and a woman doesn't mean that she wasn't.

Or, is that not what you mean?

 

[Mathematician]

And just because it's hard to imagine that the woman named Jerusalem spoken of in Ezekiel 16 is a literal woman, that doesn't mean it isn't literally true. Just because we can't understand how Jerusalem could be both a city and a woman doesn't mean that she wasn't.

I knew a girl who's parents named her Jerusalem. You wouldn't believe the things that happenned to her.