• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Noah's Ark found?

Radrook said:
"just as in Noah's day" "In the begining" referring to the first nan and woman. All the biblical writers treat the accounts as factual as well.
Click to expand...

This must be in the teachers edition, it doesn't mention anyones nan in the eden story that I read
:p
 
Radrook said:
When the Bible uses figurative language it's done through intense poetic diction, visions, dreams and parables. In contrast the historical books of are straightforward narratives. Furthermore, Jesus referred to Adam, Noah and the flood as real historiucal events with such phrases as "in the days of Noah"
"just as in Noah's day" "In the begining" referring to the first nan and woman. All the biblical writers treat the accounts as factual as well.

King James Bible
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Click to expand...
.
Self-referencing.
Bad Radrook!
Bad, bad!
 
Radrook said:
When the Bible uses figurative language it's done through intense poetic diction, visions, dreams and parables. In contrast the historical books of are straightforward narratives. Furthermore, Jesus referred to Adam, Noah and the flood as real historiucal events with such phrases as "in the days of Noah"
"just as in Noah's day" "In the begining" referring to the first nan and woman. All the biblical writers treat the accounts as factual as well.

King James Bible
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Click to expand...
Well that is dubious, they might have meant "in Noah's day" figuratively 2,000 years ago just as it is mostly used now. Especially if they understood that this is how the story was meant.

C.S. Lewis certainly regarded the temptation story as a rich allegory and there are good reasons for believing it was intended as such.

How would you regard the Job story, intended as factual or allegorical?
 
Robin said:
...

How would you regard the Job story, intended as factual or allegorical?
Click to expand...
.
Job is a vile disgusting story of sadism.
And BSD brags on it!
Now, just who would BSD have told this vile disgusting sadist story to?
Or, is it an allegory invented by a nasty minded zealot intent on scaring the audience?
 
I Ratant said:
.
Job is a vile disgusting story of sadism.
And BSD brags on it!
Now, just who would BSD have told this vile disgusting sadist story to?
Or, is it an allegory invented by a nasty minded zealot intent on scaring the audience?
Click to expand...
I am not sure how it could have been intended to scare the audience or to what purpose.

I don't think it is intended to convey "Look at what I do to you for being good, wait and see what I do to you when you are bad".
 
Robin said:
Well that is dubious, they might have meant "in Noah's day" figuratively 2,000 years ago just as it is mostly used now. Especially if they understood that this is how the story was meant.

C.S. Lewis certainly regarded the temptation story as a rich allegory and there are good reasons for believing it was intended as such.

How would you regard the Job story, intended as factual or allegorical?
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no basis for that conclusion. All biblical writers treat the events in Genesis as factual. . Abraham, lot, Sarah, Issac, Jacob, were referred to as real people. The Apostle Paul refers to a great cloud of Witnesses whom he gives as people whose faith was exemplary. Many are people mentioned in Genesis. Jude refers to the Noachian period as real history. Peter refers to it as real hisdtory. Jesus does the same. Do I consider the account of Lot literal? Of course. Why? Because there is no basis to view it otherwise.

BTW
Archeologists have found evidence of a great cataclysm in the area where Sodom and Gommorah weree located.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/ar...gomorrah_has_archeology_found_pg2.html?cat=37


Wait a minute! I just reread your post and it's Job not Lot you are asking about.! In any case, the account is also put forth in a historical fashion and I have no basis than to conclude that it was intended as a description of real events.
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
There is absolutely no basis for that conclusion. All biblical writers treat the events in Genesis as factual. . Abraham, lot, Sarah, Issac, Jacob, were referred to as real people. The Apostle Paul refers to a great cloud of Witnesses whom he gives as people whose faith was exemplary. Many are people mentioned in Genesis. Jude refers to the Noachian period as real history. Peter refers to it as real hisdtory. Jesus does the same. Do I consider the account of Lot literal? Of course. Why? Because there is no basis to view it otherwise.

BTW
Click to expand...

Ok, so by that standard all religious texts are 100% true.

in the meantime for the intelligent posters in this thread heres more news on this hoax
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100428/wl_csm/297475
But Dr. Randall Price, an evangelical Christian and former member of the Chinese-led team that announced this week’s finding, says the latest purported finding may not withstand closer scrutiny.

"If the world wants to think this is a wonderful discovery, that’s fine. My problem is that, in the end, proper analysis may show this to be a hoax and negatively reflect how gullible Christians can be," he says.
Click to expand...
Christians gullible, who'd a thought it
:D
 
Radrook said:
There is absolutely no basis for that conclusion. All biblical writers treat the events in Genesis as factual. . Abraham, lot, Sarah, Issac, Jacob, were referred to as real people. The Apostle Paul refers to a great cloud of Witnesses whom he gives as people whose faith was exemplary. Many are people mentioned in Genesis. Jude refers to the Noachian period as real history. Peter refers to it as real hisdtory. Jesus does the same. Do I consider the account of Lot literal? Of course. Why? Because there is no basis to view it otherwise.

BTW
Click to expand...
I didn't ask you if you thought the account of Lot was literal. I asked you if you thought that the account of Job was intended as literal. I picked Job for a specific reason.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
Sure, but do you regard it as intended to be factual? Or intended to by allegorical? The Book of Job I mean.

After all the differences are more interesting than the similarities.
Click to expand...

Its allegorical, unless you really believe that Satan and YHWH exist (not good news for christianity) and that one day they sat down and had a conversation about faith

Its not really a question is it, its obviously a work of complete fiction
;)
 
Robin said:
I didn't ask you if you thought the account of Lot was literal. I asked you if you thought that the account of Job was intended as literal. I picked Job for a specific reason.
Click to expand...

Yes. I believe its intention was to describe real events.
 
kerikiwi said:
Which vessel? The one described in genesis?
There is no way of knowing its seaworthiness.
Or do you mean the vessel that people make up themselves by adding all sorts of design detaills not provided in genesis, in order to show that the vessel described in genesis was seaworthy and up to the task?
So, they design a boat to float ( and I reemphasise it is not the boat described in genesis): now, how does that make the story any more true?
Click to expand...

Yes and no.
The description in the book is very rudimentary but we can point out that all of the largest wooden vessels in real life history were suffering structural integrity problem. They were leaking very severely and required a constant pumping out of the water.
And that's with them being the product of hundred of years of nautical engineering and using techniques such as steel reinforcements that would not have been available to Noah.
And the alleged ark is even larger and would have floated on even worse water, so, on face value, it seems very unlikely that such a vessel could have been made seaworthy.
 
Last edited:
Marduk said:
Its allegorical, unless you really believe that Satan and YHWH exist (not good news for christianity) and that one day they sat down and had a conversation about faith

Its not really a question is it, its obviously a work of complete fiction
;)
Click to expand...
But you are not addressing the question - are the intended to be factual or allegorical?
 
Robin said:
But you are not addressing the question - are the intended to be factual or allegorical?
Click to expand...

what is this the spanish inquisition. I already answered that its allegorical.
:rolleyes:

Please try to follow this conversation we just took part in
Robin said:
do you regard it as intended to be factual? Or intended to by allegorical?
Click to expand...
my reply
Marduk said:
Its allegorical
Click to expand...

Did you really need me to add "its intended to be" in there before you accepted my answer
:(
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
I am not sure how it could have been intended to scare the audience or to what purpose.

I don't think it is intended to convey "Look at what I do to you for being good, wait and see what I do to you when you are bad".
Click to expand...
.
I interpret it as an allegory that promises the good that comes with blind obedience, therefore, one is not supposed to question authority, and accept bad things as..... Allah's will. :)
It'll all work out in the end.
Maybe.
 
Radrook said:
There is absolutely no basis for that conclusion. All biblical writers treat the events in Genesis as factual. . <snipped the anti-historical stuff>...
Click to expand...
.
Genesis 1 and 2 didn't exist in the Torah until the Exile. They were added as ripping good yarns in Babylon after exposure to Gilgamesh and other fables.
 
Radrook said:
Yes. I believe its intention was to describe real events.
Click to expand...
And do you disagree with C.S Lewis and say that the intention of the temptation story was to portray real events?

And if so, do you believe that the intention of Genesis 1 was to accurately describe the creation of the world?
 
I Ratant said:
.
I interpret it as an allegory that promises the good that comes with blind obedience, therefore, one is not supposed to question authority, and accept bad things as..... Allah's will. :)
It'll all work out in the end.
Maybe.
Click to expand...
But for Job good did not come with blind obedience.

And I understand that the "all better now" ending was a later addition.

I have always thought of it as a sort of theological conundrum - "what if serving God brought you no benefit whatsoever - would you still serve God?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom