Quote:
Sorry, I thought I was being clear. I believe in the story, not because I believe it's super believable, but because of the reasons I previously listed (bible falls apart). I just can't dismiss what the OP is arguing, as I'm not familiar with genetics. How much of our interpretation is actually true? That I'm not sure, partial flood, world-wide etc, etc.
So your saying you have to believe this story out of necessity to maintain belief in the rest of the bible?
Quote:
As much as I'd like to simply omit the story of Noah's ark for the reasons listed here and the many more you can think of, it is impossible (imo) to omit the story and still believe the rest of the bible. Each story hinges on the previous one up to the time of Jesus, where He Himself makes reference to Noah, and Adam for that matter, as a real person.
I totally agree with this. At least this is how I was always taught and I think it makes the most sense if one wants to be intellectually honest. One could claim it is all a house of cards but at least each part still supports the other to make a logical structure.
Quote:
What are your thoughts on the other references of Noah, like in the infamous faith chapter, or the fact that Jesus' paternal lineage lists Noah?
Do you believe that Noah existed but the story around him is exaggerated, or that he, like the story, is mythological?
eagerly awaiting response from WN !
Quote:
I believe in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. In my view there is more to that than just sin and redemption but obviously that's an entirely different discussion.
Cliffs on what the "more" is?
Quote:
As far as reconciling a mythological flood story with that belief, it doesn't seem particularly problematic to me, but I have made no attempt to do so in a systematic way. I do not subscribe to the view that the Bible is "without error" though, which may be relevant. NR mentioned Jesus referencing the flood story, and that is so, but not in a way that seems to require belief in the historicity of those events in order for him to make sense. They are allusions, and ones that will be meaningful to his audience.
I have a hard time with this. Doesn't this just boil down to us believing what we like and omitting as myth what seems a bit too far fetched?
Noah being mentioned in Hebrews 11 seems pretty personal and real as a reference. It doesn't seem like an allusion. For example I could make an allusion about the Loch Ness and everyone would know what I meant without presuming that I thought Loch Ness was in any way real. Hebrews 11 on faith doesn't seem to be an impersonal allusion.
Similarly the lineage question. Lineage seems to be as much fact as you can get in the bible. If there are mythological characters tossed in to the lineage how do we know that Jesus isn't a mythological character?
Maybe the whole Jesus story is an anecdote to let us know God is love n stuff.... but Jesus was never really incarnate (not that I think this, just showing how this line of reasoning is shaky).
I feel like you are correct WN but I don't know how to come to terms with it.