Support for belief in Noah's flood, not evidence.

davewhite04 said:
billvon: Well, we know for certain that the Bible is in error if you read it literally. Fortunately most people do not.

We don't know anything for certain, we just get probabilities.
Click to expand...
Well, we know for certain that Genesis is wrong, for example, since Genesis 1 said that cattle came before man, and Genesis 2 said that man came before cattle. So that is an actual contradiction; one of them must be wrong. Therefore Genesis contains at least one provable error.

(We've gone through this before.)

What errors?
Click to expand...
The one mentioned above, for example. Another is that God fixed all the stars in the firmanent, which means he put them in a solid dome over the planet. We now know that that's not the case.
 
davewhite04 said:
exchemist:

Jesus obviously would have spoken to his followers in terms of the tradition of the times. That would be the only sensible thing to do. The last thing he would want is to get his message side-tracked into a huge debate about whether Genesis was literally true or not.

Jesus only mentions the flood in passing, in the course of making a different point, about the need for his disciples to be spiritually prepared. He does not "claim" it literally happened. He just refers to the story.

He was actually explaining what the end times will be like, not a passing statement. If he used the time before the flood as a threat, it seems empty somehow.
Click to expand...
The reference to the flood story in Matthew 24 - and the almost identical passage in Mark 17 - is made solely to illustrate the need to be prepared. His point is that the people in the story were not, and were thus taken by surprise.

This one instance seems to be the only reference Jesus makes to the flood, according to the gospels. The context is perfectly consistent with him referencing an ancient myth, rather than something that actually took place in the way it is described in Genesis.
 
billvon:

Well, we know for certain that Genesis is wrong, for example, since Genesis 1 said that cattle came before man, and Genesis 2 said that man came before cattle. So that is an actual contradiction; one of them must be wrong. Therefore Genesis contains at least one provable error.

(We've gone through this before.)

So Jesus didn't know Genesis was false?

The one mentioned above, for example. Another is that God fixed all the stars in the firmanent, which means he put them in a solid dome over the planet. We now know that that's not the case.

What makes you conclude that the firmament means solid dome around Earth? It can mean heavens.
 
davewhite04 said:
billvon:

Well, we know for certain that Genesis is wrong, for example, since Genesis 1 said that cattle came before man, and Genesis 2 said that man came before cattle. So that is an actual contradiction; one of them must be wrong. Therefore Genesis contains at least one provable error.

(We've gone through this before.)

So Jesus didn't know Genesis was false?

The one mentioned above, for example. Another is that God fixed all the stars in the firmanent, which means he put them in a solid dome over the planet. We now know that that's not the case.

What makes you conclude that the firmament means solid dome around Earth? It can mean heavens.
Click to expand...
Jesus would have known that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are contradictory, if taken literally. That's obvious to anyone who has read both and is not actually mentally defective.
 
exchemist: The reference to the flood story in Matthew 24 - and the almost identical passage in Mark 17 - is made solely to illustrate the need to be prepared. His point is that the people in the story were not, and were thus taken by surprise.

I know what the point was, it's Jesus' example that is in question. What you say is true about the customs of the day etc. So maybe Jesus did know the flood was a myth. Still doesn't excuse Luke's reference to Adam in Jesus' genealogy. He had to of existed, or a gospel is in error.

This one instance seems to be the only reference Jesus makes to the flood, according to the gospels. The context is perfectly consistent with him referencing an ancient myth, rather than something that actually took place in the way it is described in Genesis.

You do make a lot of sense, but your saying Jesus did not take the bible literally. You wouldn't warn someone that Zeus is going to smite them with his lightening bolt and expect to be taking seriously.
 
davewhite04 said:
You seem to know Jesus well.
Click to expand...
I certainly don't think he was mentally defective, as the evidence from the gospels does not show that, I think you will agree.

Unlike some people, I use my mind when I read bible passages. I try to think of the context, the times and the circumstances when deciding what seems likely to have been intended.
 
davewhite04 said:
So Jesus didn't know Genesis was false?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. He may have known it was false but figured he was already rocking the boat enough as it was. He may have not read it. (Most people of that era couldn't read.)
What makes you conclude that the firmament means solid dome around Earth? It can mean heavens.
Click to expand...
No, it can't. The original Hebrew word used in Genesis was rāqīa (רָקִ֫יעַ‎) which means "extended surface, solid expanse (as if beaten out)." It was used in two ways by the early Hebrews: 1. "(flat) expanse (as if of ice), as base, support", and 2. "the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above it."

So the way it was written in the original Pentateuch it meant "solid vault." It was only centuries later, when people realized that the heavens were not solid, that "firmament" came to be known as "heavens" since the original Hebrew definition didn't work any more.
 
davewhite04 said:
exchemist: The reference to the flood story in Matthew 24 - and the almost identical passage in Mark 17 - is made solely to illustrate the need to be prepared. His point is that the people in the story were not, and were thus taken by surprise.

I know what the point was, it's Jesus' example that is in question. What you say is true about the customs of the day etc. So maybe Jesus did know the flood was a myth. Still doesn't excuse Luke's reference to Adam in Jesus' genealogy. He had to of existed, or a gospel is in error.

This one instance seems to be the only reference Jesus makes to the flood, according to the gospels. The context is perfectly consistent with him referencing an ancient myth, rather than something that actually took place in the way it is described in Genesis.

You do make a lot of sense, but your saying Jesus did not take the bible literally. You wouldn't warn someone that Zeus is going to smite them with his lightening bolt and expect to be taking seriously.
Click to expand...
You might well refer to Zeus and thunderbolts, if you were trying to make a point to a bunch of Ancient Greeks who knew their mythology. People illustrate their arguments with literary references all the time. One might compare someone's actions to "St George slaying the dragon", for instance. Nobody thinks that actually happened, but they know the story. Jesus is saying don't be like those people in the flood story who were slackers, intent on having a good time, and got caught out.

Dave, you really, really do not have to read all this literally, word for word. Mainstream Christianity has not done this for hundreds of years, starting with Origen, a well-respected father of the church in about 300AD, who famously wrote: "[W]ho that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally...

From: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Origen

Origen would have known his Homer, of course. According to Diarmaid MacCulloch, in his "A History of Christianity", Origen and contemporary Jewish scholars at Alexandria read Genesis the way they read Homer: ancient epic stories, but with valid messages contained within them. It doesn't mean they are"untrue", any more than a Shakespeare play is "untrue".
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
I certainly don't think he was mentally defective, as the evidence from the gospels does not show that, I think you will agree.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced. He may of suffered from bipolar if he isn't the son of God.

Unlike some people, I use my mind when I read bible passages. I try to think of the context, the times and the circumstances when deciding what seems likely to have been intended.
Click to expand...

The context is that Jesus was an Jewish Rabbi who would of believed in the global flood. In a Christian context, Jesus could still be God, he was just limited by the human body.
 
billvon:

I have no idea. He may have known it was false but figured he was already rocking the boat enough as it was. He may have not read it. (Most people of that era couldn't read.)

Possibilities. I think we can let him off the hook.

No, it can't. The original Hebrew word used in Genesis was rāqīa (רָקִ֫יעַ‎) which means "extended surface, solid expanse (as if beaten out)." It was used in two ways by the early Hebrews: 1. "(flat) expanse (as if of ice), as base, support", and 2. "the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above it."

So the way it was written in the original Pentateuch it meant "solid vault." It was only centuries later, when people realized that the heavens were not solid, that "firmament" came to be known as "heavens" since the original Hebrew definition didn't work any more.

Thanks :)
 
Last edited:
You might well refer to Zeus and thunderbolts, if you were trying to make a point to a bunch of Ancient Greeks who knew their mythology. People illustrate their arguments with literary references all the time. One might compare someone's actions to "St George slaying the dragon", for instance. Nobody thinks that actually happened, but they know the story. Jesus is saying don't be like those people in the flood story who were slackers, intent on having a good time, and got caught out.

Okay, he's off the hook

Dave, you really, really do not have to read all this literally, word for word. Mainstream Christianity has not done this for hundreds of years, starting with Origen, a well-respected father of the church in about 300AD, who famously wrote: "[W]ho that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally...

I am reading it literally as to check out Jesus' credentials. In particular, the flood story(which is resolved) and Adam and Eve. I don't read the bible literally.
 
exchemist said:
True. However I have read a theory that after the ice age, the water rose - I forget which side - of the Bosphorus and eventually overtopped the barrier, leading to the sea flooding progressively through it. That could lead to flood myths, I imagine.
Click to expand...
The Black Sea hypothesis is very controversial, and is not exactly widely accepted. Same goes for the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, or other hypotheses involving near-miss comets. There's just not enough evidence to be sure about it.

More likely is the sea level rise in the Persian Gulf, along with glacial meltwater, contributed to sudden and massive flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates river delta after the Last Glacial Maximum, right at the start of civilization in the Fertile Crescent. The flood myth is mainly a Sumerian/Mesopotamian phenomenon, and spread with their influence across the Near East, so this makes some sense and fits the evidence we have.
 
Hapsburg said:
The Black Sea hypothesis is very controversial, and is not exactly widely accepted. Same goes for the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, or other hypotheses involving near-miss comets. There's just not enough evidence to be sure about it.

More likely is the sea level rise in the Persian Gulf, along with glacial meltwater, contributed to sudden and massive flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates river delta after the Last Glacial Maximum, right at the start of civilization in the Fertile Crescent. The flood myth is mainly a Sumerian/Mesopotamian phenomenon, and spread with their influence across the Near East, so this makes some sense and fits the evidence we have.
Click to expand...
Indeed. In fact I subsequently posted on that in another thread, here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/floods.159959/page-8#post-3483107, back in 2017.
 
exchemist said:
Dave, you really, really do not have to read all this literally, word for word.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, if someone is going to claim that God has a plan for our salvation and Jesus is integral to that end, then don't they have to assume that he made sure it was all written down correctly?
 
gmilam said:
On the other hand, if someone is going to claim that God has a plan for our salvation and Jesus is integral to that end, then don't they have to assume that he made sure it was all written down correctly?
Click to expand...
That naive reading of the bible only became fashionable in some extreme Protestant sects in the c.18th and 19th. Prior to that, churchmen did not generally read the bible as if it were an instruction manual. It was seen as a literary work, including elements of allegory, instructive myth, metaphor and so on.
 
exchemist said:
That naive reading of the bible only became fashionable in some extreme Protestant sects in the c.18th and 19th. Prior to that, churchmen did not generally read the bible as if it were an instruction manual. It was seen as a literary work, including elements of allegory, instructive myth, metaphor and so on.
Click to expand...
Personally, I have no problems relegating Jesus to allegory and metaphor. But I live in the bible belt of the US where MANY people believe it to be literal truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top