Noah'S Flood

[mfbukowski]

My point was, "it was their actual history, which they were connected to, not a mythological history, not one that is made up to tell a story, but history that had correspondence to reality, that gave justification for Stephens actions. Just as we use history today."

Your point is whether I can know if this history is *actually* factual correct in every way or is it just a made up thing that looks similar but doesn't correspond exactly to history.

Let's take the flood for example. Based on the events of the flood Jesus made the statement that "And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man: ²⁷ They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all."

First, the details of the events and the person surrounding the events don't need to be exact to be true. In other words, much of your objection to my reference to the correspondence to the reality of history seems to be with whether or not everything is exactly correct or not. No, not everything is detailed out like that. What is important, are the main key facts.

Was there a real Noah, and a world wide flood, that he and his family survived?

Now, if the term "days of Noah" isn't based on a real Noah, and/or a real flood, then his point also wouldn't correspond to reality, and the coming event would also be mythical and not a real threat to people.

The point was not whether or not it was a "true history" the point was about how one could know that.

I think you missed the point.

[Ron Beron]

I don't believe the story of Noah was ever meant to be considered true or history, but simply an allegory in understanding how God works. In order to do this the earliest redactors used the legends and myths at their disposal to make this point. It doesn't matter if it were history only that the message itself is true.

[danielwoods]

I don't believe the story of Noah was ever meant to be considered true or history, but simply an allegory in understanding how God works. In order to do this the earliest redactors used the legends and myths at their disposal to make this point. It doesn't matter if it were history only that the message itself is true.

So you don't think that Jesus was using it as a historical example? Do you think he believed it to be true history?

[Ron Beron]

So you don't think that Jesus was using it as a historical example? Do you think he believed it to be true history?

I cannot put myself into his thinking, nor do I really want to. The message is true whether the history might not be. The idea of revisionist and critical studies of history are fairly modern and didn't bother people until just recently. My mother used to believe everything in the newspapers because the "papers wouldn't lie". Well, they probably don't or didn't anyway, but they did obfuscate the truth and mold it to their intentions, e.g., Hearst and the Spanish American War.

Jesus was simply using a common event that everyone understood to present his truths. It didn't matter that it wasn't historical, just true.

[bcuzbcuz]

Was there a real Noah, and a world wide flood, that he and his family survived?

Now, if the term "days of Noah" isn't based on a real Noah, and/or a real flood, then his point also wouldn't correspond to reality, and the coming event would also be mythical and not a real threat to people.

I really don't follow your "If 'A' is true, then 'B' must be true" reasoning. (Or as you state it, if 'A' is a false reference, then 'B' must be equally false.) Would you care to qualify your statement?

[Calm]

And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man."

I suspect he is saying if there weren't really any "days of Noah", then there is no need based on the above to believe there will be any "days of the Son of Man". Edited July 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

If The Flood was massive but regional it still allows for God telling a real Noah to save what he could.

[danielwoods]

I really don't follow your "If 'A' is true, then 'B' must be true" reasoning. (Or as you state it, if 'A' is a false reference, then 'B' must be equally false.) Would you care to qualify your statement?

Jesus was connecting the two. Noah and judgement on the Earth. If one isn't actually a true judgement on the Earth (but only a mythical story with no real connection to real history), then it follows that the second one wouldn't be either.

[danielwoods]

I cannot put myself into his thinking, nor do I really want to. The message is true whether the history might not be. The idea of revisionist and critical studies of history are fairly modern and didn't bother people until just recently. My mother used to believe everything in the newspapers because the "papers wouldn't lie". Well, they probably don't or didn't anyway, but they did obfuscate the truth and mold it to their intentions, e.g., Hearst and the Spanish American War.

Jesus was simply using a common event that everyone understood to present his truths. It didn't matter that it wasn't historical, just true.

The message being "true" cannot be separated from it's history, if it is connected to history by the teller of the story. In other words, if I say this is true because it's historical, then claiming that it's message is still true, despite being non-historical effectively makes the message meaningless because it loses it's connection to reality.

The same difficulty is encountered when a speaker makes up a hypothetical story to "inspire" people, all the while claiming that it's a true story. When people find out that it's not actually a true story, it undercuts the impact of the message, because it was connected to the claim that it was based on a true story, not a made up one.

[Sine Saw Square]

If I said, "That guy is just like Superman! He saved that girl from the burning building."

Superman does not exist yet you can infer what I mean by sharing the same cultural reference point. I see no problem with Jesus using a similar reference in the culture in which he lived. His audience would understand what he meant whether there was a real Noah and global flood or not.

[Calm]

The same difficulty is encountered when a speaker makes up a hypothetical story to "inspire" people, all the while claiming that it's a true story. When people find out that it's not actually a true story, it undercuts the impact of the message, because it was connected to the claim that it was based on a true story, not a made up one.

But if it is never found out that it was a made up story, its impact never changes. So there are at least two parts to the story that have an impact, the actual message that can be identical for a made up story or a historical one and then there is the context it is found in, that it is simply someone's imagination or believed to really happened. In the second case, it does not matter if it happened or not, just whether or not people believe it happened you seem to be saying.

[thesometimesaint]

Is perception a shared reality or is reality a shared perception?

[blackstrap]

So what is the true message of the Flood story? If you do wickedness to a sufficient level,then God will destroy you,except not really,just metaphorically,some time in the afterlife,except maybe that's just a myth too.

When I read the 'myths' of creation from other civilizations, there is a sense of the metaphorical ( worlds on the back of a giant turtle,etc.) .

When I read the story of the Flood,there is a day to day reality reflected in it.( note the details of the construction of the ship)

Obviously,I am not sufficiently sophisticated and trained to see all the nuances.

[Ron Beron]

The message being "true" cannot be separated from it's history, if it is connected to history by the teller of the story. In other words, if I say this is true because it's historical, then claiming that it's message is still true, despite being non-historical effectively makes the message meaningless because it loses it's connection to reality.

The same difficulty is encountered when a speaker makes up a hypothetical story to "inspire" people, all the while claiming that it's a true story. When people find out that it's not actually a true story, it undercuts the impact of the message, because it was connected to the claim that it was based on a true story, not a made up one.

Je

Jesus did it all the time, and has been mentioned did it in the form of parables. I suppose in the end you can either believe in the veracity of the story or not, but what really matters is the message that is gleaned from the story. I personally believe there was a regional catastrophic event, but not to the extent where it killed everyone, but which nonetheless left an imprint on the people that was used time and time again to promote different moralistic and ethical stories.

[danielwoods]

If I said, "That guy is just like Superman! He saved that girl from the burning building."

Superman does not exist yet you can infer what I mean by sharing the same cultural reference point. I see no problem with Jesus using a similar reference in the culture in which he lived. His audience would understand what he meant whether there was a real Noah and global flood or not.

The difference is that in our culture we all know and the creators of the story of Superman acknowledge that he doesn't exist. The opposite is the case with the flood story. The fact that many of the people listening to his message could trace their linage back to Noah means that Noah did in fact exist, and therefore a reference to him is a reference to a real person. So not only did they understand the message, they also connected it to a real history that they didn't think was mythical.

[danielwoods]

But if it is never found out that it was a made up story, its impact never changes. So there are at least two parts to the story that have an impact, the actual message that can be identical for a made up story or a historical one and then there is the context it is found in, that it is simply someone's imagination or believed to really happened. In the second case, it does not matter if it happened or not, just whether or not people believe it happened you seem to be saying.

I suppose yes. I'm saying that how we view the OT has ramifications elsewhere, as the NT viewed things such as the flood, not as allegorical or mythical, but a real historical event.

[mfbukowski]

I cannot put myself into his thinking, nor do I really want to. The message is true whether the history might not be. The idea of revisionist and critical studies of history are fairly modern and didn't bother people until just recently. My mother used to believe everything in the newspapers because the "papers wouldn't lie". Well, they probably don't or didn't anyway, but they did obfuscate the truth and mold it to their intentions, e.g., Hearst and the Spanish American War.

Jesus was simply using a common event that everyone understood to present his truths. It didn't matter that it wasn't historical, just true.

[CASteinman]

I believe that Noah was a real person and I believe the story is in essential elements true. At the same time, I do not see any way, physically, for water to cover the whole earth.

I am not able to reconcile these issues. I do not spend a lot of time worrying about it. Although Noah is, by the Book, the Father of the whole Human Family, it does not give me grief to not really understand these things. Somehow it just does not matter to me.

[mfbukowski]

The message being "true" cannot be separated from it's history, if it is connected to history by the teller of the story. In other words, if I say this is true because it's historical, then claiming that it's message is still true, despite being non-historical effectively makes the message meaningless because it loses it's connection to reality.

The same difficulty is encountered when a speaker makes up a hypothetical story to "inspire" people, all the while claiming that it's a true story. When people find out that it's not actually a true story, it undercuts the impact of the message, because it was connected to the claim that it was based on a true story, not a made up one.

The whole point is that one cannot determine "real history" from "mythical history". So your distinction is meaningless.

[mfbukowski]

I believe that Noah was a real person and I believe the story is in essential elements true. At the same time, I do not see any way, physically, for water to cover the whole earth.

I am not able to reconcile these issues. I do not spend a lot of time worrying about it. Although Noah is, by the Book, the Father of the whole Human Family, it does not give me grief to not really understand these things. Somehow it just does not matter to me.

Well it does rain everywhere, just not at the same time.

[ANACO]

I believe that Noah was a real person and I believe the story is in essential elements true. At the same time, I do not see any way, physically, for water to cover the whole earth.

I am not able to reconcile these issues. I do not spend a lot of time worrying about it. Although Noah is, by the Book, the Father of the whole Human Family, it does not give me grief to not really understand these things. Somehow it just does not matter to me.

Shifting your paradigm might help.

What of Genesis 1:2 when the earth, was nothing but covered with water?

The account of the creation indicates dry land appeared.

So, how do you know some land masses didn't sink during Noah's flood? The assumption they did not isn't probable.

Genesis 7:11 indicates not only rain, but the fountains of the deep were opened up. Displacement of the ground would naturally have occurred. Ever heard of sinkholes? How about some really big ones?

Peleg was born after Noah (Genesis 10:25) and it was in his day that the earth was divided, so it implies there was only one continent during Noah's day - for those concerned that kangaroos and wombats couldn't make it back to Australia. LOL!

Kind regards.

Edited July 30, 2012 by ANACO

[danielwoods]

Je

Jesus did it all the time, and has been mentioned did it in the form of parables. I suppose in the end you can either believe in the veracity of the story or not, but what really matters is the message that is gleaned from the story. I personally believe there was a regional catastrophic event, but not to the extent where it killed everyone, but which nonetheless left an imprint on the people that was used time and time again to promote different moralistic and ethical stories.

Unfortunately it doesn't read like a parable. I agree that Jesus used parables, however it's not hard to distinguish between a parable and a historical event being told. For example. Parables don't mention exact times and dates. Notice Noah's exact age is given when the flood hit. And further notice the references to other times for other events, like when the mountains became visible, etc.. This doesn't read like a parable.

Genesis 7:

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on kthat day all lthe fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the mwindows of heaven were opened. 12nAnd the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.......

23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only wNoah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive. 24xAnd the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

8:4 Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.

[CASteinman]

So, how do you know some land masses didn't sink during Noah's flood? The assumption they did not isn't probable.

Genesis 7:11 indicates not only rain, but the fountains of the deep were opened up. Displacement of the ground would naturally have occurred.

This does not make an scientific sense to me. The Crust floats on the mantle. Whole continents cannot sink and then rise in 180 days. They can't just do that.

Edited July 30, 2012 by CASteinman

[danielwoods]

The whole point is that one cannot determine "real history" from "mythical history". So your distinction is meaningless.

Since you were able to determine that they mean different things, the distinction must not be meaningless.

[ANACO]

This does not make an scientific sense to me. The Crust floats on the mantle. Whole continents cannot sink and then rise in 180 days. They can't just do that.

It would have nothing to do with the earth's mantle, but its crust.

What of the earth being rolled together as a scroll - as prophesied by Isaiah?

What of the mountains which fled from Enoch and the Brother of Jared?

How much of the scriptures do you want to deny, because things "just don't do that"?

Maybe Mormon was a liar?

23 Know ye not that ye are in the hands of God? Know ye not that he hath all power, and at his great command the earth shall be rolled together as a scroll?

And you're only concerned about a flood?

Kind regards.

Edited July 30, 2012 by ANACO