Noah's Ark & The Global Flood

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't understand why looking at things from the perspective of "ancients" somehow would be a defense of the Bible?

It wouldn't be a "defense" of the Bible, Moniker, it would help one understand the literature. Historical/cultural context and all of that. For example, (not wanting to drive this off topic but anyway) we regularly see modern day Christians use Leviticus or the writings of Paul as a blanket condemnation against homosexual behavior. Do you think it would be wise for those particular persons to research the culture to learn exactly what practices those scriptures were referring to before condeming homosexual behavior outright?

The Bible is seen as the word of God for those that believe in it, right? When you look at the historical and cultural context the only conclusion I can draw is that it was written by men, for men, and that God was not a factor in it at all.

I also recognize that there was a water God that was seen as responsible for flooding in early Mesopotamian Culture and there were other various gods seen as responsible for other acts of nature:

<snipped image>

I think it would be wise for those that are Christians, that look at the Bible for any sort of literal truths, actually become more in tune to where these myths derive and recognize that the God of Christianity and the Great Flood was a part of ancient mythology and dismiss all of it.

Do you believe a great flood occurred, Jersey Girl? Do you think God sent down a flood and Noah built an ark and put various animal species on it? What is the point of this story for those that believe? Recognize that God is all powerful? That Noah was a prophet? What is it precisely?

That would seem to undermine the Bible and the stories therein, no?

Tell me how you think putting the writings in cultural and historical context would undermine the Bible and stories therein? You are aware that the Bible isn't entirely made up of "stories", right?

Well, it undermines the God of the Bible, Jersey Girl. If the Bible says God did this and Noah did this and the story is false then it absolutely undermines the credibility of the Bible. If God is to be known on earth by the Bible and the Bible is nothing more than a bunch of myths with a bit of historical relevance thrown in then it points to no God at all. If we put it into historical perspective then we understand how men often took events in nature and looked to a supernatural explanation -- this points to all mythology created by men to explain natural occurences in the world. This explains how men understand natural phenomenon , yet, does not point to anything supernatural, at all -- and the Bible is supporting the case of a supernatural Christian God.

I can understand how mythology was created from their perspective -- yet, this is precisely why I can reject it as not being literal truth.

You reject mythology as not being literal truth because mythology isn't literal truth. I agree that's a sound perspective.

Wow! Thanks for your smart ass reply. If you ask us to look at it from their perspective it is quite easy to dismiss God and the Bible entirely except as some cobbled myths thrown together with a bit of cultural and historical relevancy. If I understand that mythology was created in religious texts then I can reject the ENTIRE Bible as being false in regards to God. And I do.

If it's agreed that it is written by men from their perspective then why in the world would anyone say God had any part in it, at all?

Hold the phone there, Moniker. Starting at the bottom and working my way up. No part of those 2 sentences were intended as a smart ass reply. I restated, confirmed and agreed with you. If you thought otherwise, you were mistaken.

The part that I bolded in the end of that paragraph. In your exchanges with me up until now, you haven't qualified your rejection of Biblical literalism as regarding God specifically. Just pointing that out.

Let me throw out a coupla things to you so that you have some idea of where my thinking is at because I think we're largely talking past eachother. In the past, I've been engaged by a number of "good heads" who when they became aware that at that time I was a member of an SBC would regularly engage me on the topic of literalism without asking me if there were parts of of the SBC that I disagreed with, what I agreed with or what I believe the Bible is so here it is for you :-).

I think that the Bible is, in part, a record of "man's" perceived encounters with God. I say perceived, because there is so much ethnocentrism and obvious interest in political/geographical expansion that one has (this is my opinion) to see that it was written by men speaking for God and not God speaking for man.

The Bible that I read from is made up of 66 separate books. Some of that are ancient tribal stories, myths, allegory, law, poetry, historical matter (battles and such), words of wisdom (proverbs), prophecy, and so on and so forth.

No Christian believer can claim to adhere entirely to literalism if nothing else, on account of the Revelation which is obviously made up of rich symbolism. And contrary to what you yourself stated above: Law, poetry, words of wisdom cannot rightly fall into the category of "cobbled together myths". You can't place all 66 books and everything in them under the heading of "myths".

Having said all that...

You asked me what I think/believe about Noah's Flood. Here goes..

I think that the development of god belief leads me to the conclusion that at some point in ancient times (or at many points) floods did occur. I think that the ancients attributed floods and other powerful forces and occurrences in nature (thunder, rain, sun, stars, winds, etc.,) as more powerful than themselves. Somewhere in human development, I believe that human beings developed a process of self actualization and they thought in terms of the forces of nature as relating to themselves. In the case of Noah's Flood, the relating having to do with judgement.

Do I think the whole entire planet was flooded? No. I think the ancients thought so from their own frame of reference.

If I failed to answer something, drag me back to it. I'm sure I took several leaps of thought while writing this.

[_Jersey Girl]

I want to answer this part separately because the screen kept sliding around on that last response.

Moniker

The Bible is seen as the word of God for those that believe in it, right? When you look at the historical and cultural context the only conclusion I can draw is that it was written by men, for men, and that God was not a factor in it at all.

This is an example of why I think people need to study the Bible more carefully and thoroughly, especially Bible believers.

To the best of my awareness, no part of the Bible claims to be "the word of God". God is apparently quoted in certain places however, no writer that I'm aware of claims the entire Bible or it's stories to be "the word of God". The Bible isn't one single book, it is a collection of books.

Devil's advocate now...poetry, tables of tribes, accounts of ancient battles couldn't be categorized as "the word of God"...so far as I know.

I think that the biggest major problem most of us have when discussing the Bible is that we're sloppy thinkers. I include myself in that description and most everyone I've encountered on boards like these.

[_GoodK]

It is wrongheaded and unwise to attempt to interpret or read scripture outside of it's historical and cultural context.

Apparently it is unwise to interpret the following: "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die" to mean something besides a normal local flood.

And that last:

Of course, on other issues important to Christianity that are not so falsifiable you never hear this sort of argument.

What sort of argument?

The argument that words don't really mean what they normally do when it comes to reading the Bible. The argument that we aren't reading them in the context they were written. The argument that ancient prophets knew enough about the world to speak for god while they were alive, yet didn't know they lived on a planet that was larger than their immediate surroundings.

The argument that Noah, who received revelation from god (and lived hundreds of years longer than any human in recorded history) did not know the difference between a local flood and a global one.

It's fine if you want to file the Bible under the fiction section in the Library, and we can examine it as we praise it for its literary value.

But the problem is, when kids are taught this fairy tale in school, they aren't taught to consider the story "from the perspective of the people who wrote it", they are taught it as if it were literally true.


Edited to add: This sort of argument as well :

I think that the biggest major problem most of us have when discussing the Bible is that we're sloppy thinkers.]

Sloppy thinking.

The god in the Bible is a fairy tale, why is it so hard to admit that?

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK,

Just two posts above the post you made, is a fairly lengthy description of what I think the Bible is. Read it.

I think that you leap to several conclusions that have nothing to do with my actual perspectives. Because you see me argue a series of points in a discussion, has no bearing on what I actually think regarding the topic. I'm arguing points. For example, you will see me take opposing positions regarding the same topic if you read me long enough and for any length of time.

[_Jersey Girl]

GoodK,

I'm going to pick apart a portion of your post now. I don't feel like taking time to place your quotes in quotes but hopefully you'll be able to follow it when I do this:

GoodK: The argument that words don't really mean what they normally do when it comes to reading the Bible.

Jersey Girl: They mean what the author's intended them to mean.

GoodK: The argument that we aren't reading them in the context they were written.

Jersey Girl: We arent.

GoodK: The argument that ancient prophets knew enough about the world to speak for god while they were alive, yet didn't know they lived on a planet that was larger than their immediate surroundings.

Jersey Girl: I don't claim that the prophets knew enough about the world to speak for God.

GoodK: The argument that Noah, who received revelation from god (and lived hundreds of years longer than any human in recorded history) did not know the difference between a local flood and a global one.

Jersey Girl: Noah (if he existed) COULDN'T have known the difference between a local flood and a global flood. He had no frame of reference for "global".

GoodK: It's fine if you want to file the Bible under the fiction section in the Library, and we can examine it as we praise it for its literary value.

Jersey Girl: I wouldn't place it under the fiction section.

GoodK: But the problem is, when kids are taught this fairy tale in school, they aren't taught to consider the story "from the perspective of the people who wrote it", they are taught it as if it were literally true.

Jersey Girl: And that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about when I say that we are sloppy thinkers with regard to the Bible. We're sloppy, lazy, sit on our collective behinds, passive receivers of someone elses take on it. I want you to know something about me right at this point...not so long ago, I was terminated from a position that I held for a number of years because I refused to teach Old Testament stories (and some New Testament stories) to young chilldren, including the story of Noah.

Don't try to stuff me into a box based on the points I argue on a message board, GoodK. In most cases, your assumptions would be wrong.

[_GoodK]

Don't try to stuff me into a box based on the points I argue on a message board, GoodK. In most cases, your assumptions would be wrong.

Well, I wasn't trying to stuff you into a box, Jersey Girl. If you remember, I said this:

You have to remember folks, to Christians, the Bible only means what it says when it is convenient.

And I'm glad you refused to teach the Bible fairy tales to children. I still don't understand how you can dismiss the story of the flood so easily but not the story of Jesus.

[_Dr. Shades]

They disprove bcspace's assumptions via the teachings of bcspace's own church.

I didn't see that bcspace was defending or promoting church teachings.

You're correct. He was defending/promoting his own theories which are at odds with his own church's teachings.

How can cinepro possible "disprove" bcspaces assumptions (which are based on the work of credible geologists) using church teachings as "proof"?

He's not disproving bcspace's assumptions. He's merely proving to bcspace that bcspace is at odds with his own prophets.

Are you saying that cinepro is proving Genesis and if so, when he does so successfully will you alert me to the posts?

I'm saying nothing of the sort.

Here's the deal: You believe that the Old Testament should be looked at from the perspective of those who wrote it--a proposition I fully agree with, by the way. THE PROBLEM IS, the Lord's mouthpieces--i.e., the prophets & apostles of the LDS church--DISAGREE WITH YOU. They take the flood story literally as written in the Old Testament.

So, in essence, they are leading the church astray. They are promulgating falsehoods. Bcspace has seen through their B.S.; all cinepro is trying to do is get him to admit that he does indeed disagree with the Lord's moutpieces and does indeed thereby obliquely admit that they are leading the church astray.

Right, cinepro?

[_Jersey Girl]

bcspace has already stated that, Shades, on this thread.

Haven't you seen me post on both boards that I don't accept 100% of LDS doctrine and policy as stated?

[_Dr. Shades]

bcspace has already stated that, Shades, on this thread.

Right. The point of my post was to get YOU to understand what I was trying to say to bcspace.

[_Jersey Girl]

Shades, this:

Bcspace has seen through their B.S.; all cinepro is trying to do is get him to admit that he does indeed disagree with the Lord's moutpieces and does indeed thereby obliquely admit that they are leading the church astray.

Sound so arrogant. The guy responded on a thread about Noah's Ark, offering that he speculates the Black Sea Flood (localized flood) makes more sense than a Global Flood and somehow the ex-Mo inquisition begins.

Isn't someone going to ask him for his SP's name and phone number?