The Flood account (a symbolic interpretation)?

wolfsbane

.Moosejam wrote: »

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 ?

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.

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

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"?

wolfsbane

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.

wolfsbane

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?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

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?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

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 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.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

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.

mehfesto

santing wrote: »

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?

PDN

mehfesto, take it to the Creationism thread where this has already been discussed ad nauseam.

This thread is for discussing symbolic interpretations of the Flood.

mehfesto

No probs, just thought with people arguing it was a literal story that I could question the validity of these claims. I mean if it is impossible/improbable, I wouldve though it could only be a symbolic tale.