Was there a global, world-wide Flood?

[Mr Dave]

Out of curious, which Chief Rabbi are you referring to? As you probably know, American Judaism is divided into three primary denominations (Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed) with a fourth smaller denomination (Reconstructionist).

The bottom line is that I have read very convincing arguments concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as being primarily a morality story for mankind with its literal features merely being added by the later writers of the gospels who, as we all know, were not really first-hand witnesses.

Sorry, Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth

Jonathan Sacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lion King]

Wow...I'm floored and baffled at the responses in the thread! Jeez, so much for the bible being under divine inspiration :/

Me too! I just picked my chin up of the counter from my mouth actually falling open!!

Hold firmly to what you believe in your heart, no matter how the deception may fly.

I believe in a literal global flood.

 

[ebia]

Wow...I'm floored and baffled at the responses in the thread! Jeez, so much for the bible being under divine inspiration :/

God can't inspire narrative theology, only weather reports?

 

[ebia]

There is nothing in the text to suggest it was an allegory.

There's everything in the text to suggest it's purpose is theological, and plenty to suggest the writer is writing the same sort of parabolic history/myth that was a common and respected genre at the time.

 

[Harry3142]

bbbbb-

I refer you to The Muratorian Fragment, written circa 170 A.D. (much closer to the actual events than The Jesus Seminar is). In that fragment it states that the three synoptic gospels, as well as the book of Acts, were already completed prior to 62 A.D. This puts them well within the lifetime of the apostles, Jesus' own family, and others who had personally known him: www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

There are also other arguments for an early dating of the New Testament to be found here:

www.christiancadre.org/topics/dating_nt.html

As for Jesus' resurrection not to be taken as literal, It is only in the literal sense that it can be taken:

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (I Corinthians 15:20-26,NIV)

and:

But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:8-13,NIV)

We have Jesus' resurrection being told as a literal event by too many authors of Scripture for us to be able to accept the rationalization of a presentday scholar that it was only a nice story made up decades later. It is the very foundation on which the Church rests: Christ lived, Christ died, Christ lives.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Sorry, Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth

Jonathan Sacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. His comments come as no surprise to me as he heads a theologically liberal body of Judaism. I would expect similar comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

 

[bbbbbbb]

bbbbb-

I refer you to The Muratorian Fragment, written circa 170 A.D. (much closer to the actual events than The Jesus Seminar is). In that fragment it states that the three synoptic gospels, as well as the book of Acts, were already completed prior to 62 A.D. This puts them well within the lifetime of the apostles, Jesus' own family, and others who had personally known him: www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

There are also other arguments for an early dating of the New Testament to be found here:

www.christiancadre.org/topics/dating_nt.html

As for Jesus' resurrection not to be taken as literal, It is only in the literal sense that it can be taken:

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (I Corinthians 15:20-26,NIV)

and:

But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:8-13,NIV)

We have Jesus' resurrection being told as a literal event by too many authors of Scripture for us to be able to accept the rationalization of a presentday scholar that it was only a nice story made up decades later. It is the very foundation on which the Church rests: Christ lived, Christ died, Christ lives.

I assuredly believe in the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and your resources are part of the reason I believe in it.

My point, however, is that one can view the Flood of Genesis in the same moralizing light that many use to get past the sticky parts of New Testament stories such as the incarnation and the Resurrection. The rationalistic approach in all cases is almost identical.

 

[Mr Dave]

Thanks. His comments come as no surprise to me as he heads a theologically liberal body of Judaism. I would expect similar comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

He heads mainstream Orthodox Judaism.

he is the Chief Rabbi of the mainstream British Orthodox synagogues, but not the religious authority for the Federation of Synagogues or the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations or the other movements, Masorti, Reform and Liberal Judaism.

 

[2thePoint]

There's everything in the text to suggest it's purpose is theological, and plenty to suggest the writer is writing the same sort of parabolic history/myth that was a common and respected genre at the time.

Got a question for you:

Were the ancients incapable of writing history without allegory, hyperbole, etc.? How would you identify a text as in the genre of history?

 

[Mr Dave]

Got a question for you:

Were the ancients incapable of writing history without allegory, hyperbole, etc.? How would you identify a text as in the genre of history?

Perhaps if it falls in the genre of 'History' in the OT might be a start, which Genesis does not.

 

[2thePoint]

Perhaps if it falls in the genre of 'History' in the OT might be a start, which Genesis does not.

On what basis do you assert that Genesis is not in the genre of History?

 

[Mr Dave]

On what basis do you assert that Genesis is not in the genre of History?

The OT is split into three bits in Judaism (a bit more in Christianity) being Torah (Law, instruction, guidleines), Ketuviim (Writings, history) and Neviim (Prophets) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh

Genesis is Torah. Read it in that light.

 

[Eric Hilbert]

Differemce being that your example comes in the Gospels, which are intended to present a biography/history of what happened by people who lived at such a time, into a Greek context.

So then, the Gospels are more authoritative than the Old Testament?

The story of the flood was written by people many years after those who believe in the event claimed it to happen

Isn't this the same argument atheists and liberals use to try to dismiss the resurrection?

in an introduction to the law which does not claim to be a history into a Jewish Hebrew context. As the Chief Rabbi (who is a reliable source on things relating to the Torah) said recently

Jesus read it literally. He talked about it like it was a real, literal description of historical events. Do you know the Bible better than Jesus?

 

[ebia]

Got a question for you:

Were the ancients incapable of writing history without allegory, hyperbole, etc.? How would you identify a text as in the genre of history?

History as a post enlightenment historian thinks of it? They wrote something roughly similar for history that was recent to them, but decreasingly less so as one moves away from that.

Precise clues vary - even between Greek styles.

 

[2thePoint]

The OT is split into three bits in Judaism (a bit more in Christianity) being Torah (Law, instruction, guidleines), Ketuviim (Writings, history) and Neviim (Prophets) Tanakh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Genesis is Torah. Read it in that light.

Then historical elements of, say, Leviticus can't be literal history either, and should all be allegorized. In other words, consistency demands that if entire books are to be labeled only one genre, then there can be no individual exceptions. So Abraham and Moses and all the patriarchs are reduced to figments of imagination to tell stories about morality. That's the logical conclusion, unpleasant though many may find it.

But not everyone shares the "all Genesis is law" claim:

Professor Nahum Sarna, who was chairman of the Department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts, referred to the days in Genesis as the same kind of days in the regulatory sacrifices in the Book of Leviticus (i.e. literal days, Lev. 7:15; 22:30).13
My conclusion had to be that the traditional Jewish understanding of the days of Genesis is that they are literal. As I left the London School of Jewish studies and passed a Jewish newsagent on the way back to the tube (London Underground train), I glanced at the Jewish Chronicle. It was dated in the year 5,760 since creation. The Rabbis calculated this date 4,000 years after the event, and a lot of information was missing at the time. With modern knowledge of post-biblical chronology, we now know they were about 250 years short.(source, and be sure to let the data stand on its own instead of shooting the messenger).

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Differemce being that your example comes in the Gospels, which are intended to present a biography/history of what happened by people who lived at such a time, into a Greek context.

The story of the flood was written by people many years after those who believe in the event claimed it to happen, in an introduction to the law which does not claim to be a history into a Jewish Hebrew context. As the Chief Rabbi (who is a reliable source on things relating to the Torah) said recently

Great quote! IMO, This hyper-literalism approach is one born out of western scholasticism, and one foreign to the Jews and early Christians.

 

[2thePoint]

2 Peter 3:

1 Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. 3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

 

[PaladinValer]

Thanks. His comments come as no surprise to me as he heads a theologically liberal body of Judaism. I would expect similar comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Probably because the +++ABC is wiser than you think he is.

And mind you, if he were liberal, things in the Anglican Communion would be far more difficult than they are now. Take it from an actual Anglican. He's a moderate, not a liberal.

 

[98cwitr]

There's everything in the text to suggest it's purpose is theological, and plenty to suggest the writer is writing the same sort of parabolic history/myth that was a common and respected genre at the time.

So differentiate for me then; from theological to actuality. The resurrection is theological too...doesn't make it a parable now does it?

You claim and provide no evidence...parables in the Bible are quite clear and certainly the Flood does not fit that mold. Yet please, indulge us.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I don't argue about such things. As for me, I emphasize the cross while believing in the true Truth to the story of Noah. It happened. I don't explain it or expend energy defending it. I believe it. When lost folks lure you into that debate you've already lost.