|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 4, 2021 13:48:56 GMT
Is the biblical Flood fact or allegory?
That's a false dichotomy. It could be hyperbolized historical fact with a hefty dose of symbolic meaning. Flood stories are ubiquitous around the world. This is either evidence for a worldwide flood or just a factor of human settlements congregating around significant sources of water. It's interesting to note that when "the whole world" was flooded in the Genesis story, the word for "world" is the Hebrew word eretz, the most obvious meaning of which is "land." For example, eretz Israel is the Hebrew for "land of Israel" (although I supposed that could be translated the "world of Israel," but nobody would understand that to mean "the whole world").
But how can we trust the Bible if this story isn't "literal fact"? Is there room for symbolism or hyperbole?
Consider the case of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1-4—described as "mighty men who were of old, men of renown," the product of the ambiguous mating between the "sons of God and the daughters of man." There are numerous interpretations for this which are, for the purpose of this argument, completely irrelevant. The point is that Nephilim were on the earth. And the global Flood should have "wiped them all out."
In Numbers 13:32-33, the Israelite spies returning from the land of Canaan reported that there were Nephilim there. Were there? Because if they were, they must have survived the Flood. Or...maybe...they were hyperbolizing? If the first, that is a serious challenge to the claim that the Flood wiped everybody out except Noah and his family. If the second, well then...hyperbole is allowed.
|
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 5, 2021 2:55:30 GMT
Is the biblical Flood fact or allegory? That's a false dichotomy. It could be hyperbolized historical fact with a hefty dose of symbolic meaning. Flood stories are ubiquitous around the world. This is either evidence for a worldwide flood or just a factor of human settlements congregating around significant sources of water. It's interesting to note that when "the whole world" was flooded in the Genesis story, the word for "world" is the Hebrew word eretz, the most obvious meaning of which is "land." For example, eretz Israel is the Hebrew for "land of Israel" (although I supposed that could be translated the "world of Israel," but nobody would understand that to mean "the whole world"). But how can we trust the Bible if this story isn't "literal fact"? Is there room for symbolism or hyperbole? Consider the case of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1-4—described as "mighty men who were of old, men of renown," the product of the ambiguous mating between the "sons of God and the daughters of man." There are numerous interpretations for this which are, for the purpose of this argument, completely irrelevant. The point is that Nephilim were on the earth. And the global Flood should have "wiped them all out." In Numbers 13:32-33, the Israelite spies returning from the land of Canaan reported that there were Nephilim there. Were there? Because if they were, they must have survived the Flood. Or...maybe...they were hyperbolizing? If the first, that is a serious challenge to the claim that the Flood wiped everybody out except Noah and his family. If the second, well then...hyperbole is allowed. The Old Testament did not say the Flood was allegory. The New Testament doesn't say it was allegory. The early church fathers never said it was allegory. The Flood has always been treated as fact up until the Darwinian synthesis. As for the Nephilim, what happened before the Flood began to happen again afterwards but to no serious effect. This may have been due to the changing of climate and the lifespan of humanity decreasing. There are also two complete Babylonian versions of the Flood: The Atra-Hasis Epic, and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Both accounts also record a global Flood. The Sumerian King's List divides the dynasties by the Flood. China has a global Flood account as well. These ancient accounts are not allegory nor did Jesus treat the Flood as allegory. But you trust corrupt men over Scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 5, 2021 3:09:09 GMT
Is the biblical Flood fact or allegory? That's a false dichotomy. It could be hyperbolized historical fact with a hefty dose of symbolic meaning. Flood stories are ubiquitous around the world. This is either evidence for a worldwide flood or just a factor of human settlements congregating around significant sources of water. It's interesting to note that when "the whole world" was flooded in the Genesis story, the word for "world" is the Hebrew word eretz, the most obvious meaning of which is "land." For example, eretz Israel is the Hebrew for "land of Israel" (although I supposed that could be translated the "world of Israel," but nobody would understand that to mean "the whole world"). But how can we trust the Bible if this story isn't "literal fact"? Is there room for symbolism or hyperbole? Consider the case of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1-4—described as "mighty men who were of old, men of renown," the product of the ambiguous mating between the "sons of God and the daughters of man." There are numerous interpretations for this which are, for the purpose of this argument, completely irrelevant. The point is that Nephilim were on the earth. And the global Flood should have "wiped them all out." In Numbers 13:32-33, the Israelite spies returning from the land of Canaan reported that there were Nephilim there. Were there? Because if they were, they must have survived the Flood. Or...maybe...they were hyperbolizing? If the first, that is a serious challenge to the claim that the Flood wiped everybody out except Noah and his family. If the second, well then...hyperbole is allowed. The Old Testament did not say the Flood was allegory. The New Testament doesn't say it was allegory. The early church fathers never said it was allegory. The Flood has always been treated as fact up until the Darwinian synthesis. As for the Nephilim, what happened before the Flood began to happen again afterwards but to no serious effect. This may have been due to the changing of climate and the lifespan of humanity decreasing. There are also two complete Babylonian versions of the Flood: The Atra-Hasis Epic, and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Both accounts also record a global Flood. The Sumerian King's List divides the dynasties by the Flood. China has a global Flood account as well. These ancient accounts are not allegory nor did Jesus treat the Flood as allegory. But you trust corrupt men over Scripture. I'm not asserting that the Flood is allegory. You're arguing against what I'm not saying. I'm not sure you're actually reading my posts. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 5, 2021 3:33:56 GMT
The Old Testament did not say the Flood was allegory. The New Testament doesn't say it was allegory. The early church fathers never said it was allegory. The Flood has always been treated as fact up until the Darwinian synthesis. As for the Nephilim, what happened before the Flood began to happen again afterwards but to no serious effect. This may have been due to the changing of climate and the lifespan of humanity decreasing. There are also two complete Babylonian versions of the Flood: The Atra-Hasis Epic, and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Both accounts also record a global Flood. The Sumerian King's List divides the dynasties by the Flood. China has a global Flood account as well. These ancient accounts are not allegory nor did Jesus treat the Flood as allegory. But you trust corrupt men over Scripture. I'm not asserting that the Flood is allegory. You're arguing against what I'm not saying. I'm not sure you're actually reading my posts. H776 אֶרֶץ ʼerets is contextual. You can tell by the text if the word is applied locally or globally. Its the general word for earth. The word אֶרֶץ ʼerets is often used many times alongside H8398 תֵּבֵל têbêl which is also contextually applied. However, most references to têbêl are global as the word generally is applied to mean "the habitable globe." When têbêl and erets share a context, as a general rule, it always means globe. Now, whenever you see "the whole world" or "whole earth" mentioned it literally means the entire earth as an entity. The ark landed on Mt.Ararat. Numbers 13:32-33 was also a false report given to Moses. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2021 16:15:53 GMT
Caesar can do no wrong! Wherever it's proven wrong, it's a metaphor, anywhere else, it's to be taken literally.
Clowns!
|
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 5, 2021 19:34:23 GMT
Caesar can do no wrong! Wherever it's proven wrong, it's a metaphor, anywhere else, it's to be taken literally. Clowns! Its ridiculous comments like these are the reason why religion isn't debatable. You go out of your way not to understand anything. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2021 21:41:59 GMT
Caesar can do no wrong! Wherever it's proven wrong, it's a metaphor, anywhere else, it's to be taken literally. Clowns! Its ridiculous comments like these are the reason why religion isn't debatable. You go out of your way not to understand anything. No, I think I've summed up pretty accurately how you people play it. |
|
|
|
Post by FEZZILLA on May 6, 2021 0:24:50 GMT
Its ridiculous comments like these are the reason why religion isn't debatable. You go out of your way not to understand anything. No, I think I've summed up pretty accurately how you people play it. Ah, no you haven't. Not even close. |
|
|
|
Post by atreyu on May 6, 2021 1:56:05 GMT
Where'd all the water go again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2021 17:02:44 GMT
Where'd all the water go again? You don't get it. It's magic water, it comes and goes as needed. It's funny how god is just grossly sloppy... eraser... I mean if he wanted to kill all mankind all he had to do is create plague that would kill all mankind except a chosen few, no need to destroy the entire world and the innocent animals in the process... What an unconscionable piece of shit!!!! Plus I am sure he could have spared the kids and a few adults to take care of them. I mean what a sadistic piece of crap would kill absolutely EVERYONE without distinction and start with a single family creating generations of inbreeding!!! Seriously, if any of you can't see that for themselves, you can go fuck yourselves, assholes!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on May 8, 2021 18:30:17 GMT
As a young evangelical at a secular college, I was thrilled to meet my first Orthodox Jew and had roughly 8 million questions for him. I don't remember everything he said, but I remember asking him whether he thought the Flood actually happened, and he responded, "Why would anyone care?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 8, 2021 20:59:12 GMT
As a young evangelical at a secular college, I was thrilled to meet my first Orthodox Jew and had roughly 8 million questions for him. I don't remember everything he said, but I remember asking him whether he thought the Flood actually happened, and he responded, "Why would anyone care?" Nice. Maybe he just wasn't "serious about scripture."😉 But this illustrated that much of what "we evangelicals" take as a "given" isn't so. As much as we can cherry-pick early Church Fathers to justify our hermeneutic positions, a hardline literalist interpretation only really became a "marker of (evangelical) orthodoxy" sometime in the past 100 years. I think this also underscores what might be the central issue: what is scripture for? Getting this right likely bypasses the arguments that insist on fundamentalist interpretations—both "for" and "against." It's remarkable how many "anti-Christians" insist on literal interpretations (probably so they can easily dismantle them). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2021 22:07:40 GMT
As a young evangelical at a secular college, I was thrilled to meet my first Orthodox Jew and had roughly 8 million questions for him. I don't remember everything he said, but I remember asking him whether he thought the Flood actually happened, and he responded, "Why would anyone care?" He sounds like a Jesuit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2021 22:10:01 GMT
As a young evangelical at a secular college, I was thrilled to meet my first Orthodox Jew and had roughly 8 million questions for him. I don't remember everything he said, but I remember asking him whether he thought the Flood actually happened, and he responded, "Why would anyone care?" Nice. Maybe he just wasn't "serious about scripture."😉 But this illustrated that much of what "we evangelicals" take as a "given" isn't so. As much as we can cherry-pick early Church Fathers to justify our hermeneutic positions, a hardline literalist interpretation only really became a "marker of (evangelical) orthodoxy" sometime in the past 100 years. I think this also underscores what might be the central issue: what is scripture for? Getting this right likely bypasses the arguments that insist on fundamentalist interpretations—both "for" and "against." It's remarkable how many "anti-Christians" insist on literal interpretations (probably so they can easily dismantle them). It's amazing how many Christians are trained in the art of saying very little with many words. |
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on May 10, 2021 5:37:04 GMT
Is the biblical Flood fact or allegory? That's a false dichotomy. It could be hyperbolized historical fact with a hefty dose of symbolic meaning. Flood stories are ubiquitous around the world. This is either evidence for a worldwide flood or just a factor of human settlements congregating around significant sources of water. It's interesting to note that when "the whole world" was flooded in the Genesis story, the word for "world" is the Hebrew word eretz, the most obvious meaning of which is "land." For example, eretz Israel is the Hebrew for "land of Israel" (although I supposed that could be translated the "world of Israel," but nobody would understand that to mean "the whole world"). But how can we trust the Bible if this story isn't "literal fact"? Is there room for symbolism or hyperbole? Consider the case of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1-4—described as "mighty men who were of old, men of renown," the product of the ambiguous mating between the "sons of God and the daughters of man." There are numerous interpretations for this which are, for the purpose of this argument, completely irrelevant. The point is that Nephilim were on the earth. And the global Flood should have "wiped them all out." In Numbers 13:32-33, the Israelite spies returning from the land of Canaan reported that there were Nephilim there. Were there? Because if they were, they must have survived the Flood. Or...maybe...they were hyperbolizing? If the first, that is a serious challenge to the claim that the Flood wiped everybody out except Noah and his family. If the second, well then...hyperbole is allowed. If we were sisters, you’d be Alex Dunphy and I’d be Haley. I don’t even know what “allegory” means. I have always thought of the great flood as a literal event. It rained and rained until there was a flood and all living creatures were wiped out except for Noah and his family. If there was no great flood, why would God tell Noah to construct an ark? Why tell him to bring aboard animals? |
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on May 10, 2021 5:38:12 GMT
As a young evangelical at a secular college, I was thrilled to meet my first Orthodox Jew and had roughly 8 million questions for him. I don't remember everything he said, but I remember asking him whether he thought the Flood actually happened, and he responded, "Why would anyone care?" Hey, long time no see, Running Deer. I hope you’ve been well!  |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 10, 2021 15:54:40 GMT
Is the biblical Flood fact or allegory? That's a false dichotomy. It could be hyperbolized historical fact with a hefty dose of symbolic meaning. Flood stories are ubiquitous around the world. This is either evidence for a worldwide flood or just a factor of human settlements congregating around significant sources of water. It's interesting to note that when "the whole world" was flooded in the Genesis story, the word for "world" is the Hebrew word eretz, the most obvious meaning of which is "land." For example, eretz Israel is the Hebrew for "land of Israel" (although I supposed that could be translated the "world of Israel," but nobody would understand that to mean "the whole world"). But how can we trust the Bible if this story isn't "literal fact"? Is there room for symbolism or hyperbole? Consider the case of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:1-4—described as "mighty men who were of old, men of renown," the product of the ambiguous mating between the "sons of God and the daughters of man." There are numerous interpretations for this which are, for the purpose of this argument, completely irrelevant. The point is that Nephilim were on the earth. And the global Flood should have "wiped them all out." In Numbers 13:32-33, the Israelite spies returning from the land of Canaan reported that there were Nephilim there. Were there? Because if they were, they must have survived the Flood. Or...maybe...they were hyperbolizing? If the first, that is a serious challenge to the claim that the Flood wiped everybody out except Noah and his family. If the second, well then...hyperbole is allowed. If we were sisters, you’d be Alex Dunphy and I’d be Haley. I don’t even know what “allegory” means. I have always thought of the great flood as a literal event. It rained and rained until there was a flood and all living creatures were wiped out except for Noah and his family. If there was no great flood, why would God tell Noah to construct an ark? Why tell him to bring aboard animals? If the story is (in part or in whole) symbolic, then God telling Noah to construct an ark is also symbolic. No? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2021 16:30:52 GMT
If we were sisters, you’d be Alex Dunphy and I’d be Haley. I don’t even know what “allegory” means. I have always thought of the great flood as a literal event. It rained and rained until there was a flood and all living creatures were wiped out except for Noah and his family. If there was no great flood, why would God tell Noah to construct an ark? Why tell him to bring aboard animals? If the story is (in part or in whole) symbolic, then God telling Noah to construct an ark is also symbolic. No? What you people don't realize is that god is symbolic as well. |
|
|
|
Post by jasmine on May 10, 2021 21:36:26 GMT
If we were sisters, you’d be Alex Dunphy and I’d be Haley. I don’t even know what “allegory” means. I have always thought of the great flood as a literal event. It rained and rained until there was a flood and all living creatures were wiped out except for Noah and his family. If there was no great flood, why would God tell Noah to construct an ark? Why tell him to bring aboard animals? If the story is (in part or in whole) symbolic, then God telling Noah to construct an ark is also symbolic. No? I doubt it is symbolic. The Bible was incredibly specific is how Noah was to construct the ark. Aren’t symbolic stories more generalized? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on May 11, 2021 1:40:45 GMT
If the story is (in part or in whole) symbolic, then God telling Noah to construct an ark is also symbolic. No? I doubt it is symbolic. The Bible was incredibly specific is how Noah was to construct the ark. Aren’t symbolic stories more generalized? Maybe not. But whether or not it is historically factual, it's "symbolic" either way. |
|
