Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Flood account (a symbolic interpretation)?
Options
Comments
-
-
And you hold yourself high as an object of ridicule, to sit at a computer and type that, the science which created it long long ago relegated your ideas to the backwash of delusional insanity , it's simply an abject insult to the thousands who spent their lifes work devoted to the improvement of mankind, if you hold those beliefs then you can not use your PC.
It is simply not possible to hold those views and sit using a computer, absolutely not possible, and I hold you as being two faced in the extreme, on the one hand holding those views and on the other using the technology which has exposed your views as false,
And yet here you are using the tools.
Can you spell two faced ?
Can you spell 'infracted'? Pull a stunt like that again and you'll learn how to spell 'banned'.0 -
Not true. Scholars are in agrreement as to the authorship of some of the New Testament books, and disagree as to the authors of others.allisbleak wrote: »PDN with all due respect, you have no IDEA who wrote the New Testement.
What I can say, Rohatch, on the basis of some of your previous posts, is that I evidently know more about the composition of the New testament than you do.
No, I don't offer up a 1900 year old text as 'proof' of anything. As for interpreting something to suit situations - that is what people do with every communication be it written or oral. I suggest you try a little communication theory. Without interpretation there is no communication.Its only idiocy to you. When you are asked for proof you constantly offer up the word of a 1900 year old text as a basis of facts, then you interpret it to suit any situation.
Then a link might be helpful since I long ago let my subscription to Time lapse as a waste of money and have no intention of reading hundreds of issues to search for an article that you like.DNA blows this away. There is an excellent article in Time magazine.
No facts or counter-argument then, so I guess I'll just have to take your word for it?Completely incorrect.
Everything needs to be interpreted. How do you expect anyone to derive any meaning from your posts, from a dictionary, or from anything unless they interpret them?There is your problem. If religion was real it would not need to be interpreted.
Actually it isn't a sign for me, since I believe that the truth of a proposition is not increased or lessened by popular vote.Surely the fact that over 5 billion other people on the planet do not believe what you do is a sign.
However, if you believe that the truth of a proposition is undermined by the numbers of people that fail to believe it, then that must be a hammer blow to your atheistic views since over 6 billion other people on the planet don't believe what you do.0 -
Was The Flood not the relatively quick filling of the Black Sea when water from the Med broke through the Bosphorus after the melting of the North American ice cap? It is likely to have taken from a year or two to as short as a few months to cover the area we now know as the sea. Displacing the early societies that were living there back South. A cataclysmic event leaving a very strong folk memory.0
-
Allisbleak / Rohatch, PDN's cited Nature article was an attempt to estimate the date of the most recent individual who features in the family tree of everyone in the world. The article was not saying that all people today inherit all their genes from this one common ancestor, who they reckon lived a mere 5,000 years ago. In fact, plenty of other people living at the time have contributed to our genomes. This is why if you estimate the common ancestor for each human gene in turn, you typically get much more ancient estimates, far older even than the common ancestor for the human Y chromosome (Y chromosomal Adam, ~ 60,000 years ago) or mtDNA (mtDNA Eve, ~150,000 years ago).
That said, PDN, I fear yours is a somewhat selective approach to the science. You say that you accept the evidence for Mitochondrial Eve, but later that you think that the whole of the 'human race' was still living in the area swept clean by the Biblical flood, which you recognise as occurring in the Near East. Yet the evidence says that Mitochondrial Eve lived in Africa, where humans evolved (incidentally, Darwin predicted we'd find this even before any fossils had been dug up). Modern humans remained in Africa for a hundred thousand years or so before a small number of them spread out to populate the world. For your Noachian deluge to put paid to all humans bar Noah & kin, it would therefore have had to spread across at least two continents, and so amount to rather more than a little local difficulty on the Mesopotamian flood plain.
Or perhaps I'm reading you wrong? Are you taking the 'True Scotsman' line, and excluding contemporaneous African people from your definition of the 'human race' because you think they weren't descendents of the first divinely inspired Homo sapiens, your near-Eastern Adam and Eve?0 -
Advertisement
-
Was The Flood not the relatively quick filling of the Black Sea when water from the Med broke through the Bosphorus after the melting of the North American ice cap? It is likely to have taken from a year or two to as short as a few months to cover the area we now know as the sea. Displacing the early societies that were living there back South. A cataclysmic event leaving a very strong folk memory.
No, the Biblical account of the flood is a world-wide flood, with a water depth that went over the highest mountains. In support of that is that memories of the flood are to be found in many ancient civilations from the middle east to China, Americas etc.0 -
No, the Biblical account of the flood is a world-wide flood, with a water depth that went over the highest mountains. In support of that is that memories of the flood are to be found in many ancient civilations from the middle east to China, Americas etc.
In relation to that, where do you believe the water came from and where do you believe it went to afterwards? Is it just that you believe god created it miraculously and then removed it miraculously afterwards? Is that your view as to how the plant life survived aswell, that it was shielded supernaturally from the effect of drowning and from light deprivation? Also does the bible offer a timeframe for the flood to have begun, lasted and ceased? Do believers in the literal interpretation of the account have any view as to wether the flood water was fresh or salted and an explanation as to how sea life would survive that level of fresh water diluting their environment and sea floor life would survive the extra weight of all those thousand of tons of water, or how all other life (on the ark) would have survived without any supply of fresh water on earth in the event of the flood being salt water?
Or is the only theory offered for all the above that god supernaturally circumvented these problems?0 -
darjeeling wrote: »Or perhaps I'm reading you wrong? Are you taking the 'True Scotsman' line, and excluding contemporaneous African people from your definition of the 'human race' because you think they weren't descendents of the first divinely inspired Homo sapiens, your near-Eastern Adam and Eve?
Do you want to discuss what I actually posted, or do you want to impute highly offensive and maliciously false views that try to present me as a racist? Make your mind up - because I'm certainly not to give you the opportunity to do both.
All I said was that I was open to the possibility that the flood was less than global in its scope. I certainly did not limit it to the Mesopotomian flood plain. In fact the areas I mentioned as being beyond the scope of a local flood were Australia and Antarctica.
There are a number of different possible scenarios that could account for varying extents of the Flood and be consistent with what we know of population distribution and the role of DNA in our ancestry.0 -
There are a number of different possible scenarios that could account for varying extents of the Flood and be consistent with what we know of population distribution and the role of DNA in our ancestry.
I don't know a whole lot about population distribution when the flood supposedly happened (a few thousand years ago?). If a reasonably large amount of people were killed in the middle east you'd think that would leave its mark. Do you have links or books for evidence of this? You seem fairly sure. And I am honestly interested in this I don't have any problem with a local flood at all (I have major problems with a flood that covered literally every square inch).0 -
Do you want to discuss what I actually posted, or do you want to impute highly offensive and maliciously false views that try to present me as a racist? Make your mind up - because I'm certainly not to give you the opportunity to do both.
Oh dear, I don't know where you get that from. Let me elaborate:I don't know if all members of homo sapiens that were alive at the time of the Flood were killed. I do believe that those who descended from Adam and Eve, with the exception of the 8 in the ark, were killed (for example, I'm open to the possibility that Adam and Eve were simply the first humans in whom God implanted a spirit - making them 'in his image').It [the flood] was sufficient to wipe out the human race because, that early on, they had not spread to many parts of the world yet.
Taking those two posts together, it's not clear what you mean by the 'human race'. It seems as though you allow the possibility that not all Homo sapiens living at the time of the flood qualified, and that descent from Adam and Eve was a requirement for inclusion. But I'll leave it to you to explain what you mean.There are a number of different possible scenarios that could account for varying extents of the Flood and be consistent with what we know of population distribution and the role of DNA in our ancestry.
I would note, though, that you acknowledge that the most recent common ancestor for the Y-chromosome is estimated using population genetics to have lived 60,000 years ago. If your flood was much more recent than that, and all the male survivors descended from a single man, Noah, then there's a problem right off. This is just to point out that when you start trying to justify these events with science, then you have to take account of all that the evidence is saying. I'm satisified that the scientific consensus from geological, palaeontological, genetic, biogeographic etc evidence doesn't support a recent global flood, but I'm not going to pursue it any further here, given that the monster creationism thread has already covered all of this.0 -
Advertisement
-
The answer is yes. Are you really interested in a detailed answer?In relation to that, where do you believe the water came from and where do you believe it went to afterwards? Is it just that you believe god created it miraculously and then removed it miraculously afterwards? Is that your view as to how the plant life survived aswell, that it was shielded supernaturally from the effect of drowning and from light deprivation? Also does the bible offer a timeframe for the flood to have begun, lasted and ceased? Do believers in the literal interpretation of the account have any view as to wether the flood water was fresh or salted and an explanation as to how sea life would survive that level of fresh water diluting their environment and sea floor life would survive the extra weight of all those thousand of tons of water, or how all other life (on the ark) would have survived without any supply of fresh water on earth in the event of the flood being salt water?
Or is the only theory offered for all the above that god supernaturally circumvented these problems?0 -
Continuing from my last post, you say the flood was enough to wipe out the human race:It [the flood] was sufficient to wipe out the human race because, that early on, they had not spread to many parts of the world yet.
And yet you allow that it could have been limited to the ancient Near East:[...]I don't believe that the Flood necessarily covered the entire planet earth. [...] However, even if a Flood covered a massive area in the Ancient Near East, I don't see any need for stocking a boat with koala bears or penguins.
Putting these two posts together, it seems you're implicitly saying that a massive Near Eastern flood was enough to satisfy the Biblical account of exterminating the human race (this must sound very callous to any on-lookers, but hey ho).
Given that this isn't the creationism thread, and that you seem happy to assimilate scientific fact with the flood narrative, then - for information only and not debate - I'll quickly set out rough dates for the spread of modern humans around the world. Archaeological and genetic data indicates that humans were living continuously in Africa for the last 200,000 years or so. By around 40,000 years ago, the archaeology says they had spread into Europe, into Asia and into Australia. By 15,000 years ago, humans had reached North America. I'm not sure what date you have in mind for the flood, but whenever it took place, there were - going on this physical evidence - humans living outside the Near East, hence my asking how they fit into your understanding of the flood.
As for myself, I don't believe in a flood that nearly wiped out humanity - happily for our forebears! I think the story is a myth, possibly magnified from a local historical incident; after all, we know the story was written down in Mesopotamia, the land between the rivers, where floods were both commonplace and essential for agriculture. Its resonance, though, is that it taps into human fears and hopes. We fear the powerful, indifferent and arbitrary forces of nature - storms, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes. Not knowing when disasters may strike, we try to find certainty by telling ourselves that they are a divine judgement on us, but that we may avert the worst by doing right by the gods. This taps into our sense of guilt, but also offers hope, giving the myth such power over the imagination.
The myth still holds people today. Just a couple of years ago, the Anglican Bishop of Carlisle made waves by telling us that flooding in the UK was a judgement on the nation's sorry morality (story here). We also find an echo in the green movement, with some people fearing an environmental reckoning brought about by our violation of the earth, and feeling that our only hope is to abandon economic growth and our hubristic technologies to live in harmony with the natural world. A myth, then, but still a potent one.0 -
The answer is yes. Are you really interested in a detailed answer?
If there's a detailed answer to be had, then yes I'm interested in it.
The difficulty I have with that idea is, why? If God decided that he was going to wipe out life, including the human race, but excluding the sea life and plant life, why do so through a global flood which was completely supernatural in nature, and then supernaturally intercede to prevent the natural effect of a flood of that scale on the plant and aquatic life and on the water supply? Why use a natural force like a flood, to accomplish his goal but apply supernatural safegaurds to limit it's natural effect. Why go through the bother of getting Noah to round up the animals, build a massive boat ect. Why not just miracle all the bad people away or to death or whatever and so avoid the unnescesary, and without divine intervention, completely immpossible global flooding, species decimation, ark building, animal collecting, and repopulation from completely inadequate genetic pools?0 -
A good FAQ about a global Flood can be found at http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers0
-
A good FAQ about a global Flood can be found at http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers
I"m not being funny santing, but have you actually read some of the answers provided in the link? Some of them are so ridiculous they are beyond parody. Salt water and fresh water fish 'adapted in their lifetime' the question of husbandry has been avoided all together ( how can anyone really think a man gathered ALL the animals of the world, millions and millions of species, predator and prey alike and ALL their massive fodder needs onto a wooden boat??) Various dinosaurs just winked out of existence due to this so called global flood? Really, you are comfortable with this?0 -
There are more than 500 entries in the MEGA Discussion (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=316566), so I don't think we should start another discussion on this in here...fatmammycat wrote: »I"m not being funny santing, but have you actually read some of the answers provided in the link? Some of them are so ridiculous they are beyond parody. Salt water and fresh water fish 'adapted in their lifetime' the question of husbandry has been avoided all together ( how can anyone really think a man gathered ALL the animals of the world, millions and millions of species, predator and prey alike and ALL their massive fodder needs onto a wooden boat??) Various dinosaurs just winked out of existence due to this so called global flood? Really, you are comfortable with this?0 -
I am talking specifically about the link you provided. Have you read it and if so how on Earth can you offer it up as any kind of evidence to a global flood? Pertinent questions on husbandry avoided, science made up, geology made up. Logic abandonded. Really, I'm asking you as a person, how can you support such a site?0
-
A good FAQ about a global Flood can be found at http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers
Thanks for the link Santing, just got through reading it there, it does make a couple of interesting observations. I completely agree with Fatmammycat (great username btw) though, not even taking into account what fatmammycat pointed out, in it's attempt to address a certain issue, one article it links to presents it's evidence for something and the very next article it links to, in an attempt to address a seperate point, directly contradicts the majority of the points from the preceding article. This happens more than once.
Still I appreciate your effort to provide an answer. I guess there just isn't one beyond, "God did it and that's just how he rolls".0 -
There's already the Creationism thread where much debate has occurred about the scientific evidence for or against a global flood.
This thread was separate because it dealt with other interpretations. If it continues to rehash the BC&P stuff then we'll move it or lock it.0 -
Feel free to lock it PDN. My question was weather there were symbolic or metaphorical interpretations of the event and what they may be. It appears there aren't any? Thanks.0
-
Advertisement
-
Creationists have no problem with real science, the sort that gives us computers. We do have trouble with the interpretations and semi-religious dogma of those who want an alternative to God and think evolution fits the bill.And you hold yourself high as an object of ridicule, to sit at a computer and type that, the science which created it long long ago relegated your ideas to the backwash of delusional insanity , it's simply an abject insult to the thousands who spent their lifes work devoted to the improvement of mankind, if you hold those beliefs then you can not use your PC.
It is simply not possible to hold those views and sit using a computer, absolutely not possible, and I hold you as being two faced in the extreme, on the one hand holding those views and on the other using the technology which has exposed your views as false,
And yet here you are using the tools.
Can you spell two faced ?
Your rant is just one example of that. Thanks for illustrating the point.0 -
Creationists have no problem with real science, the sort that gives us computers. We do have trouble with the interpretations and semi-religious dogma of those who want an alternative to God and think evolution fits the bill.
Your rant is just one example of that. Thanks for illustrating the point.
This is offensive and misrepresentative. You should know better, you've been told enough times. Evolution is a very solid scientific theory which can explain the diversity of life on earth, no more, no less. Do you describe those who promote gravity as "semi-religious"?0 -
I'm sorry to have been absent from the thread for some time, for it deals with a very important theological issue. Unlike the mega-thread, where everything is discussed (often in circles), this one focuses on what the Bible meant rather than any disputes about what science has found.
I respect PDN for his honest treatment of the issue and have hopes for him thinking it through in due time. Many true Christians have assumed evolution is a fact and have allowed that to influence their interpretation of the Bible. As far as I can see, it is only when they are pressed to fill in the detail of their theistic evolutionary interpretation that they see the problems.
The detail that is needed about how a local flood could last 150 days, and that required a confinement on the ark for over a year. Where was such a location that drifting to the shore would not have been much more convenient?
Details of how one can understand Christ's and the apostles reference to the Genesis account as other than literal. Are we not all of 'one blood'? Did Adam's sin not pass upon us all? How can the genealogies seem to cover only a few thousand years, if man has been around so much longer? Are they not deliberately misleading in that case? Details like how Paul can base his commandment on the role of women on the claim that Eve was created after Adam and of his body.
How can God describe billions of years of suffering and death as 'very good'? And death is portrayed as the 'last enemy' by the NT.
Theistic evolution raises insuperable theological problems, problems that demand a mistaken Bible and a mistaken or even deceptive Christ and apostles.
Finally, it establishes a hermeneutic that allows any of the NT's narrative to be made non-literal: the same hermeneutic that makes a parable of Genesis on creation allows Christ's virgin birth, sinless life and physical resurrection to get the same treatment.
ISAW had a valid point - we cannot pick and choose what is historical event and what not when both are given as apparent historical narrative.0 -
doctoremma wrote: »This is offensive and misrepresentative. You should know better, you've been told enough times. Evolution is a very solid scientific theory which can explain the diversity of life on earth, no more, no less. Do you describe those who promote gravity as "semi-religious"?
We can observe the effects of gravity. See it in action. We see nothing of evolution, only variation of flies, dogs, frogs. No change molecules to man or ANY large change anywhere. It is all inferred.
Evolution is a scientific theory that seeks to explain the diversity of life on earth. So is the creation model. Scientists on both sides make the scientific arguments.
The 'semi-religious' tone comes when evolutionists gag any opposition to their theory and brand the scientists who oppose them as not real scientists. That's a bigoted defence of dogma if there ever was one.
But back on topic - have you any theological grounds for evolution?0 -
How can God describe billions of years of suffering and death as 'very good'? And death is portrayed as the 'last enemy' by the NT.
Er, hang on a minute.
How can God describe the genocide of the Israelite neighbors as justice?
He can because he is God and all goodness comes from him. If God did it then it is good. If God said it then it is true. At least that is the argument put across every time this is discussed. If all morality comes from God then what God does, no matter what it is, is righteous and good.
So if God describes billions of years of suffering and death as "very good" then it is very good. Who are you to come along and say there is an incompatibility there? What, in your judgement God wouldn't say that billions of years of suffering and death is very good? You judge what God would or wouldn't do now? You know better?
There was billions of years of suffering and death and God said that was good. So it was good.
If you turn around and say well I don't accept that, God wouldn't say that about this, why can't some else turn around and say that God wouldn't say genocide of the Canaanites was just? God wouldn't do that. Any time anyone says something like that they are accused of pretending to know better than God.
You can't use your own morality to judge one bit and not the other?0 -
We can observe the effects of gravity. See it in action. We see nothing of evolution, only variation of flies, dogs, frogs. No change molecules to man or ANY large change anywhere.
Given that you won't define what you consider a "large change" that statement is some what pointless.
Evolution has been observed countless times but you simply say that isn't evolution because it isn't a big enough change, though you won't tie down
what criteria the change has to be in order for you to consider it evolution.
So as not to drag this thread off topic, feel free to join us in the Creationist thread if you want to tell us what you would consider to be enough accumulative changes to say that something evolved into something else.
Otherwise you are just changing the goal post any time anyone gives you support evolution.0 -
I take it you missed the bit about the NT saying death is the last enemy? That contradicts any pre-Fall death.Er, hang on a minute.
How can God describe the genocide of the Israelite neighbors as justice?
He can because he is God and all goodness comes from him. If God did it then it is good. If God said it then it is true. At least that is the argument put across every time this is discussed. If all morality comes from God then what God does, no matter what it is, is righteous and good.
So if God describes billions of years of suffering and death as "very good" then it is very good. Who are you to come along and say there is an incompatibility there? What, in your judgement God wouldn't say that billions of years of suffering and death is very good? You judge what God would or wouldn't do now? You know better?
There was billions of years of suffering and death and God said that was good. So it was good.
If you turn around and say well I don't accept that, God wouldn't say that about this, why can't some else turn around and say that God wouldn't say genocide of the Canaanites was just? God wouldn't do that. Any time anyone says something like that they are accused of pretending to know better than God.
You can't use your own morality to judge one bit and not the other?
I should have pointed out too that death was threatened to Adam & Eve if they ate the fruit. TEers suggest that meant spiritual death only - but that does not fit with the NT doctrine either.0 -
I take it you missed the bit about the NT saying death is the last enemy? That contradicts any pre-Fall death.
I should have pointed out too that death was threatened to Adam & Eve if they ate the fruit. TEers suggest that meant spiritual death only - but that does not fit with the NT doctrine either.
You can only reach that conclusion by judging God
I could say that the genocide in the Old Testament contradicts what is suggested by the New Testament (in fact people say this all the time). How can God preach on thing and then another? That can't be true.
But Christians like you would say that it can't be a contradiction because it all come from God, and God cannot contradict himself.
If God gets the Hebrews to kill their enemies in the Old Testament and then tells us in the New Testament to love our enemies that is not a problem because there must be a reason for it (which many have put forward suggestions as to what that is) and there is no contradiction. There is reason for everything God does and says even if we don't understand that reason.
To think you know better and invent a contradiction between pre-fall death and the New Testament is ridiculous when you give out so strongly about people doing exactly the same thing with other subjects.0 -
You need to read your NT. God still kills His enemies. But now that the Church is not the nation, nor has a nation-state, the killing of His enemies is not at any time delegated to them. He reserves it to Himself and his providence.You can only reach that conclusion by judging God
I could say that the genocide in the Old Testament contradicts what is suggested by the New Testament (in fact people say this all the time). How can God preach on thing and then another? That can't be true.
But Christians like you would say that it can't be a contradiction because it all come from God, and God cannot contradict himself.
If God gets the Hebrews to kill their enemies in the Old Testament and then tells us in the New Testament to love our enemies that is not a problem because there must be a reason for it (which many have put forward suggestions as to what that is) and there is no contradiction. There is reason for everything God does and says even if we don't understand that reason.
To think you know better and invent a contradiction between pre-fall death and the New Testament is ridiculous when you give out so strongly about people doing exactly the same thing with other subjects.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, the Biblical account of the flood is a world-wide flood, with a water depth that went over the highest mountains. In support of that is that memories of the flood are to be found in many ancient civilations from the middle east to China, Americas etc.
Is this the accepted biblical view I the flood?
Can I just ask these questions then?:
1. How did Animals that were not localised to the area of Noah survive? Things like Kanagroos etc?
2. Are we all descended of Noah & his wife? If so how did black/Caucasian/Asian races come to be within the timeframe (4000 years?)
3. Where did all the water come from? As it is now, a global flood would take an extra vast amount of water to establish an overall higher level surely? Are there any global markings which might suggest a sudden influx of water?0
Advertisement