canard78 Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 2 hours ago, Freedom said: I believe that the text does not claim a global flood so as far as the events in the story, everybody but Noah's family died. Who was encompassed by the flood is not expressed. There is no need to assume that the flood was global in order for the details to be an accurate portrayal of what occurred. There are still some impracticalities of a limited flood. How many animals are you imagining on there? Two of every kind? What kinds? How were they all fed and watered? Or was it just a handful of herd animals. In the end, to make it remotely credible, the story has to be cut back so far as to make it almost meaningless. If it's really just a parable to teach a message, leave it as a parable. Slot it in with the good samaritan and the prodigal son. 1
Rivers Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) 57 minutes ago, canard78 said: There are still some impracticalities of a limited flood. How many animals are you imagining on there? Two of every kind? What kinds? How were they all fed and watered? Or was it just a handful of herd animals. In the end, to make it remotely credible, the story has to be cut back so far as to make it almost meaningless. If it's really just a parable to teach a message, leave it as a parable. Slot it in with the good samaritan and the prodigal son. The local flood theory just creates more of headache IMO. Nor do I think it's useful to try to make the flood fit within a modern scientific worldview. Why not simply accept the flood story for what it is as presented in Genesis through the lens of an ancient near-eastern worldview? Edited March 30, 2016 by Rivers 1
canard78 Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 6 minutes ago, Rivers said: The local flood theory just creates more of headache IMO. Nor do I think it's useful to try to make the flood fit within a modern scientific worldview. Why not simply accept the flood story for what it is as presented in Genesis through the lens of an ancient near-eastern worldview? Do you mean accept it for what it is: a myth with a moral?
Rivers Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, canard78 said: Do you mean accept it for what it is: a myth with a moral? Something like that. Although the word "myth" doesn't necessarily mean a story that is false. Edited March 30, 2016 by Rivers
Hamba Tuhan Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, canard78 said: It's a simple "yes," "no" or "I don't know." OK. Yes, then. Or 'I don't know'. Whichever better conveys what I've been trying to convey. Quote Do you believe there were kangaroos and proboscis monkeys on the ark? As I mentioned above, 'I personally don't know anything about the origins of the Pacific's animals'. Quote Why aren't you willing to actually say what you do believe? Why aren't you willing to understand that I've been saying exactly what I do believe? Is it that you can only hear -- or that you need to hear -- certain answers? By the way, what do you 'believe' about the presence of the sweet potato in the Pacific prior to the post-Colombian exchange? Edited March 30, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan
Hamba Tuhan Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, canard78 said: In the end, to make it remotely credible, the story has to be cut back so far as to make it almost meaningless. Wow, your god sounds a lot smaller than than the One I know. Mine does all kinds of incredible things, like creating earths and then providing them with plants and animals, all by just speaking the command. And causing virgins to conceive. And completely removing the entire consequence of sin by means of His own vicarious suffering. Edited March 30, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Wow, your god sounds a lot smaller than than the One I know. Mine does all kinds of incredible things, like creating earths and then providing them with plants and animals, all by just speaking the command. And causing virgins to conceive. And completely removing the entire consequence of sin by means of His own vicarious suffering. The processes God used was accretion and evolution. That eliminates the need for Golem Spells( Pure freaking magic). Artificial insemination provides a way for virgins to conceive. However I'm not positing that that is the way God did it. I don't see how. Please explain.
hope_for_things Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 I just recently watched this NOVA episode on the Noah's ark story. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/secrets-noahs-ark.html Fascinating new research on a tablet 3700 years old that was discovered. They go through much of the science about the origins of the flood story how this was taken from the earlier Babylonian stories when the Israelites were in captivity in the 6th century. The church would do well to examine the value in these stories as forms of literature rather than as history. 1
canard78 Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Wow, your god sounds a lot smaller than than the One I know. Mine does all kinds of incredible things, like creating earths and then providing them with plants and animals, all by just speaking the command. And causing virgins to conceive. And completely removing the entire consequence of sin by means of His own vicarious suffering. I wonder if your italicisation of "incredible" was intentional given its original meaning. I agree that what you have described is largely in(or not)credible. You're right that "my god" is a lot smaller than yours, but yours sounds like the product of an active imagination.
canard78 Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: OK. Yes, then. Or 'I don't know'. Whichever better conveys what I've been trying to convey. As I mentioned above, 'I personally don't know anything about the origins of the Pacific's animals'. Why aren't you willing to understand that I've been saying exactly what I do believe? Is it that you can only hear -- or that you need to hear -- certain answers? By the way, what do you 'believe' about the presence of the sweet potato in the Pacific prior to the post-Colombian exchange? I know you've been saying what you believe... It's just that what you've been saying has been excessively vague. Sweet potato in Pacific Islands? Nothing to do with Columbus. Why should it? Nothing to do with the flood either (if that's what you're hinting at). There are plenty of reasonable hypotheses. http://www.nature.com/news/dna-shows-how-the-sweet-potato-crossed-the-sea-1.12257 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 6 hours ago, canard78 said: I wonder if your italicisation of "incredible" was intentional given its original meaning. Yep, precisely for that reason. Quote You're right that "my god" is a lot smaller than yours, but yours sounds like the product of an active imagination. I think the scriptures call it 'the effect of a frenzied mind'.
Hamba Tuhan Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 6 hours ago, canard78 said: Sweet potato in Pacific Islands? ... There are plenty of reasonable hypotheses. I'm curious to know why you're avoiding answering the question directly. Why aren't you willing to actually say what you do believe?
Freedom Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 18 hours ago, canard78 said: There are still some impracticalities of a limited flood. How many animals are you imagining on there? Two of every kind? What kinds? How were they all fed and watered? Or was it just a handful of herd animals. In the end, to make it remotely credible, the story has to be cut back so far as to make it almost meaningless. If it's really just a parable to teach a message, leave it as a parable. Slot it in with the good samaritan and the prodigal son. Why are you so determined to fit it into a 21st century world view? Why must it be either all true or all fiction? Have you considered that the ancient writers had a different perspective when they wrote their history? You seem determined to make it about material rather than function. You have to take off your modern way of recording history, take away the understanding of how things work, and consider the functions being expressed. It is an account of taking disorder (sin) and putting it into a state of non-order (the waters) so that Noah could restore order (coming out into the new world). Consider the functions of the flood rather than the material nature of a flood. Consider the functions of the animals rather than the material logistics of the animals. When you focus on the functions, you will see that the material aspects are irrelevant. The author did not care or even consider the material logistics of the story because it simply would not have factored into their world view. To us, the story would have to be a fable if the material aspects do not add up. When they recorded events, it was not about focusing on realism. Consider how Nephi recorded the the story of obtaining the brass plates. The story was recorded to express the function of him becoming king. It played out like the story of David. Historical events were not recorded to give a play by play material record but rather to express the events in terms of their function for their society. Genesis 1 is the same thing. The moon was not an object in space reflecting the light from the sun, to them it served the function of providing light at night. It was a light in the sky as far as they were concerned.
Recommended Posts