that's what you're effectively doing when you defend sites like RTB/AiG run by a few people who target a specific audience using pseudoscience while downplaying what is near total mainstream scientific consensus.

To the extent that whenever I read anything that purports to say something meaningful about reality, I am deciding as I go how to relate to it and whether I agree with it, then I'm also doing the same thing when I read the Bible. And not just "as I go" on reading, but after the fact as well, and continuously. What else is there to do? It wouldn't be fundamentally any different to decide "as I go" to accept something based only on an external authority. It only pushes the question back to what makes the authority authoritative?

At the same time, I don't really set out to read the Bible and decide which parts are "true" and which are "false", nor would I equate the meaningfulness of biblical texts with historical veracity alone or plausibility from a scientific perspective. I am looking for inspiration. I'm often perplexed by carlo and his esoteric interpretation of every possible question, but at the same time, I agree with him that the spiritual value and meaning in these texts is not as histories in the modern sense. There is also a long tradition of interpreting religious texts using non-literal and non-historically-minded hermaneutics, both in and outside of Christianity. Lectio Divina is an example.

I'm not sure how to summarize how this view of scriptural interpretation fits in with a wider Christian worldview in general, but this comes to mind:

I quote it presupposing you already accept the words of Jesus as being valuable, just to be clear.

Presumably, Jesus could have just stuck around (post-resurrection if you want to be juridical about the atonement via crucifixion!) and told us everything that was true and let us know if the flood actually occurred, if he was God and wanted to. If you view Christianity only in terms of discerning facts about history or as a categorization of statements by their correspondence to material facts, it doesn't make sense for it to be good that Christ went away. Words spoken by a corporeal voice are clearly much easier to hear. Why the Spirit instead, which "blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going"?

I say for two reasons: Because the Spirit does not remain outside of us, but is united to us in a way that a corporeal Christ could not be, and because there is a value in preserving human freedom, and the Divine Mystery as Mystery, as opposed to a theocracy imposed from "On High".

I dont really care about this issue. But I think people should be acknowledged for retractions like this. Shows you care about what you say, rather than on just being right.

90% of our regular posters would retract an unfactual statement if they learned about the error later.

Ok i read the flood story again, three different versions . It really needs some rewriting if it was local. Along with any other story's that use similar misleading words. God should fire his editors. Not literally though cause that would be mean.


Also why get the animals and plants if it was local. Didn't God know they would start repopulating the land pretty much as soon as the land recovered from the flood. Wouldn't think Noah putting two of every kind would speed that up much. Just me pondering no answer necessary.

Or claim everyone else was too stupid to understand what they obviously meant.

I think you're right if they are called out on it. I'm not sure that most wouldn't have just deleted the post if they catch themselves saying something wrong, rather than leaving the error up for all to see.

I do believe that if you begin to take out certain accounts that the other stories begin to dismantle as well, so since I do believe in Jesus etc., I believe this as well, even though it's more difficult to believe.

My main problem with defending/attacking these beliefs is that there are so many areas that these stories encompass that it's difficult to be knowledgable in each area enough to defend your view, whether for or against. Areas like botany, genetics, archeology etc. I can't argue with people from either camp who have a long list of letters after their name and are devoted to a specialty.

I believe that it is "like a house of cards" as you put it, but I can respect WN and his views, there is logic to what he says, but I think you're opening up a door of subjectivism which is not easily shut.

I thought that it was generally agreed amongst theists that the flood happened roughly 4k BC?

If I understand your post correctly, you're saying that Noah lived at least 30k years ago?

Wouldn't it be prudent, even intellectually honest, to reserve judgment until you had more information or evidence? What I'm curious about is how this doesn't cause you to have the kind of doubt that would undermine what you believe and at the very least, put you back on the fence. Your position seems much harder to defend than that held by the theists who agree that the bible is most likely inaccurate and believe in God anyway.

So, I assume you read the story in ancient Hebrew, through the eyes
of an ancient Hebrew?

I don't know if he did so, but I certainly read it through the eyes of an ancient Hebrew. After all, this is a standard that should be expected of everyone. There is simply no reason to read the story or comment on it whatsoever if you do not meet this highly realistic standard.

Also the bible was only meant for a handful of mostly illiterate people during a very short, specific period in time. It's not like anyone claims it is still relevant today.

Did you, festeringzit?

There is a hypothesis that a comet caused Burckle Crater in the Indian Ocean which generated a mega tsunami 2800 BCE. If so, flood stories from around this time could be the result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater

No thats the point.

Got a good translation that doesn't make it look like God killed all humans and covered the mountains with water?

Or how about that link citing that ancients believed in a local flood.

Good point.

Or maybe it was just what the Noah clan needed to restart their lives, which would simplify the ark building.

They might delete it but they wouldn't wait to be called on it. It's actually a left handed insult to Not Ready to single him out for praise on this issue.

I believe that most theists, possibly all, at some point or another have to use faith. That is, at some point you're going to make a choice that is not based solely on logic, it's just the nature of spirituality/religion.

I strongly believe in God/Jesus, I'm convinced of it. Part of what convinces me is my own experiences which I can't refute. So what follows from that is that I believe in the bible. This I can admit is not a logical decision, at least entirely.

If it turns out that it's just a story, so be it. I don't believe they were meant to be simply stories, although metaphors and figures of speech are used, and have often been misunderstood. The New Testament writers who teach about Jesus and what His character is, also talk about these events. If I agree with them about who Jesus is and what He does, then it makes sense that the rest of what they say is likewise true. Otherwise, I have the choice to just take out portions I don't like, and basically make my own way.

I realize the story of Noah is quite out there and highly unlikely, but it's still possible. All that to say, this particular belief may not be logical, but it's just the extension of my belief in God. If it turns out the flood was local or just a metaphor, then so be it, it really doesn't impact my belief in God, or how I live my life. When it comes to believing the bible, you are right, there is no denying that there is faith involved, which is why I would never try to argue or prove the legitimacy of the bible. You can in fact criticize this from a philosophical or even scientific viewpoint, you'd be right to.

I don't know why it follows. The majority of Christians I've met and the majority here don't seem to have to believe in the bible in this way.

I can understand you protecting or accepting a belief, such as the flood, if another belief which you held, such as God, was contingent on it. But it isn't if the above is true.

You're right, not everyone accepts this, or feels the need to, I just personally think everything is contingent like you said. I believe it has to be true to some degree.

If it is a metaphor, or local, or misunderstood in some way by our present interpretation, it is still true to some degree, which would still have an element of contingency, as opposed to being flat-out false. If you can (imo) prove that the OT is false, then the NT is going to crumble to some extent. That's just my personal take on it, many do agree with this view, and others (as seen here) disagree.

------
Maybe I'm wrong in saying that if it's a metaphor it would still be contingent, perhaps it would need to be real for things to not fall apart. I haven't really examined this line of thinking that much, so I may have spoke too fast on that.

But it seems that your belief in God isn't contingent on the flood story being true, as you said

If you're concerned about the validity of the NT being contingent on the historicity of the OT, treating stories in Genesis as metaphor doesn't solve your problem. You'd have to discard almost everything pre-David.

I already cited two quotes from Josephus, one of which he is quoting
Nicolaus of Damascus who was born in 64 BC. Do you need more?

That's true to an extent. If the flood was a metaphor, and like WN described it being spoken by Jesus and Paul other than historically, it would still make sense. If on the other hand, lets say we find out that the OT was written after Jesus and written in a way to justify Jesus, then that would be problematic.

You're right though, I agree that you could discount Genesis as being a fairy tale and still believe in the Christian God, I tend to give the bible a little more credit, even if I understand it's not logically based.

I think I agree with this, but I'd have to re-examine what WN said previously. It definitely takes away some of the legitimacy imo, I honestly don't know if the entire thing falls apart or not, so I admit I may have been wrong in saying what I said about it being a metaphor.