quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^
Christ's parables were clearly parables. The writer of Hebrews praises David's, Moses', Abraham's and Noah's deeds but not those of any characters of the parables!
I see this as a critical issue, which goes to the heart of the argument. You are happy to accept that the bible contains parables; teaching stories which are not necessarily literally true, but which illustrate a deeper meaning. Are you happy to accept that the bible may also contain myths and legends?
Acceptance of this point does not necessarily mean that the flood story is such a myth, of course. I consider the Genesis creation story to be a myth, while I suspect that the flood story is a legend - that is, a story passed down through the generations which may have originated with a real incident. For example, the story of Zeus visiting Danae in a shower of gold is a myth, while the Trojan story may be a legend.
A critical point about a legend is that, while aspects of the story may have been true, other aspects added later may not be. The stories of Arthur and Robin of Locksley illustrate this well. We have historical evidence of an Arthur as a Dark Age war leader, a Duke, but not as a King, and most of the exploits associated with him are either complete fabrications, or happened to someone else and got attached to him.
You will have seen earlier posts in which I drew attention to the assertion that the Genesis flood 'covered the world'. I don't think anyone is trying to argue that no floods ever occurred in biblical (or earlier) times. We are trying to argue that, as a legend, individual details are not necessarily accurate. Myself, I am not even sure that the many authors through which this story passed ever meant 'the whole world' in the first place. The words could easily be interpreted to mean 'a wide area', and, in the absence of orbital photography, it is hard to see how anyone could have known that the 'whole world' was covered. If a flood covers all the places I have ever been to in my life, I am very likely to think of the world as being flooded. What did the word 'world' mean, anyway, to a person who was unlikely to think of it as a sphere floating in space?
quote:
That arguement could be won by a grade six student in a primary school debate. Genesis clearly aims to describe the origin of things and a world wide flood that deluged the world.
We have a book claiming quite openly to be the revelation of God to man. Why not believe creation and the flood if one can belive in the resurrection of Christ?
Why should Christians doubt the flood? It is utterly, utterly ludicrous IMO.
I am not sure of the age of a grade six student, which I presume to be low, but I am impressed with your estimation of their capabilities. In this country most 6-8 year olds would have difficulty citing much of the basic research on physics, geology, literary criticism, history and the like which would undoubtedly be required in such an argument. Congratulations of your achievements in the field of education! Though I note that you also include the words 'in a primary school debate'. Does this mean that this argument could only be won in front of an uneducated audience?
Mention of a 6 year old leads me to consider the issues of understanding. Many young people consider various legends to be true, as do many older persons, especially those who have been brought up in traditions which depend on them, or who have no apparatus for investigating them deeply. I can well believe that Jesus and Paul of Tarsus both believed that the flood legend was literally true - it would be part of their upbringing. So indications that they believed its accuracy are not proofs that it was true.
Your later arguments seem to lack pith. You may be mistaking me for a Christian? The suggestion that if you can believe one apparently impossible thing you can believe any number of others is surely not what you intended to convey? It smacks of Lewis Caroll.
Incidentally, could you indicate where the entire bible declares itself to be the revelation of God to Man? I am well aware that many humans claim this, but in my view the bible is a collection of many items, some of which have no obvious bearing on religious revelation. The Song of Solomon is a good example.
In various places divine revelation is claimed (typically for passages dealing with Laws), but these claims only seem to refer to the local story, not the whole document. It is hard to see how even claims in one document which do refer to the whole bible can be evaluated unless we know exactly what the bible comprised at the time the document was written.
[This message has been edited by Me, 08-23-2002]
™ Version 4.2