Noahs Ark (How can anyone possibly believe the story)

[PolyHedral]

I didn't say that every story in the entire Bible and in every bible book was a parable. But I think we can decipher which ones are parables.

Yes, but SoS's point is that Jesus' "bloodline" implies two important stories (i.e. the Flood and Genesis) aren't parables.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say that every story in the entire Bible and in every bible book was a parable. But I think we can decipher which ones are parables.

But how do you do that?

It seems to me that the genealogy in Luke 3 takes Noah as a literal person. IMO, this means that if we're going to accept both it and the flood story in some way, then this means we can't take the flood story as a non-literal parable and the geneaolgy as literal.

Does that list of names make sense as a "parable"? I don't think it does.

 

[Vansdad]

It's upto the individual if they want to take it all litterally. It is written to have some consistancy too.

 

[ChristineES]

Good point. Not only that, but it goes through Noah.

I think there are a lot of ways to decipher that, too. But don't ask me how, I am not a Bible scholar. I just come up with ideas that may work, I don't have any definite answers to any of these. :sorry1: Also, anything I say is my opinion and shouldn't be take as anything else.

 

[ChristineES]

But how do you do that?

It seems to me that the genealogy in Luke 3 takes Noah as a literal person. IMO, this means that if we're going to accept both it and the flood story in some way, then this means we can't take the flood story as a non-literal parable and the geneaolgy as literal.

Does that list of names make sense as a "parable"? I don't think it does.

Read my answer above, which I posted while you were still writing. It simply states that I don't know everything. I wish I did, but I don't. (No matter how smart we try to be, there will always be more and more that we find out we don't know, )

 

[Man of Faith]

Listen to this parable about the Ark. What is it supposed to mean? What is it supposed to teach us?

“Build a large boat from cypress wood and waterproof it with tar, inside and out. Then construct decks and stalls throughout its interior. 15 Make the boat 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. 16 Leave an 18-inch opening below the roof all the way around the boat. Put the door on the side, and build three decks inside the boat—lower, middle, and upper.

 

[ChristineES]

Listen to this parable about the Ark. What is it supposed to mean? What is it supposed to teach us?

“Build a large boat from cypress wood and waterproof it with tar, inside and out. Then construct decks and stalls throughout its interior. 15 Make the boat 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. 16 Leave an 18-inch opening below the roof all the way around the boat. Put the door on the side, and build three decks inside the boat—lower, middle, and upper.

Those are just details to make a story, I would assume. But I think the whole story could mean the separation between humans and God, except for a small few who kept following God. Or maybe it has some other meaning. Stories are wonderful things, they convey truth in a way that different people can see in different ways. Maybe that was it's purpose in the first place.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Those are just details to make a story, I would assume. But I think the whole story could mean the separation between humans and God, except for a small few who kept following God. Or maybe it has some other meaning. Stories are wonderful things, they convey truth in a way that different people can see in different ways. Maybe that was it's purpose in the first place.

But yet the Gospels suggest that Noah was a real person...?

 

[Jose Fly]

Again, read the account as written in the Bible. It's quite obviously two stories mashed into one.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Again, read the account as written in the Bible. It's quite obviously two stories mashed into one.

Instead of just telling us to read the accounts ourselves, can you not just explain what this mash-up is and deal with our laziness?

 

[Jose Fly]

Instead of just telling us to read the accounts ourselves, can you not just explain what this mash-up is and deal with our laziness?

LOL!

Well, as in the creation account and other OT stories, in one version of the flood story, God is "Yahweh" and in the other he is "Elohim"....aw heck, I can be lazy too....read the following:

The Two Genesis Flood Stories

 

[ChristineES]

But yet the Gospels suggest that Noah was a real person...?

Maybe he was. I was just making a suggestion. Maybe there was a true Noah, but the story itself was a parable. We have no way of knowing. They can't even go back far enough (historically) to prove or disprove whether King David was real. Until they find out a way, we have to use our imaginations- which may be true or may be totally off the mark.

 

[Man of Faith]

Those are just details to make a story, I would assume. But I think the whole story could mean the separation between humans and God, except for a small few who kept following God. Or maybe it has some other meaning. Stories are wonderful things, they convey truth in a way that different people can see in different ways. Maybe that was it's purpose in the first place.

Details mean no parable. The parable of the sower didn't include how big a bag of seed to use.
(This is the most facepalms I have ever done in one post, it's a record.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe he was. I was just making a suggestion. Maybe there was a true Noah, but the story itself was a parable. We have no way of knowing. They can't even go back far enough (historically) to prove or disprove whether King David was real. Until they find out a way, we have to use our imaginations- which may be true or may be totally off the mark.

Even if King David is sketchy, we can go back to certain earlier events with reasonable accuracy: the Exodus, for instance. The archaeological evidence (and plain old common sense, IMO) tells us that it didn't literally happen.

 

[Father Heathen]

I liked the flood fable better when it was called The Epic of Gilgamesh.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The water came from two places, under the earth and above the earth.

Where did the water go?
"Simply put, the water from the Flood is in the oceans and seas we see today. Three-quarters of the earth’s surface is covered with water.
As even secular geologists observe, it does appear that the continents were at one time “together” and not separated by the vast oceans of today. The forces involved in the Flood were certainly sufficient to change all of this.
Scripture indicates that God formed the ocean basins, raising the land out of the water, so that the floodwaters returned to a safe place."

Was There Really a Noah

Again, your source ignores everything we know about geology, hydrology, and plate tectonics.

Is it common among Global Flood Literalists to be so dishonest in order to support their pseudoscientific claims?

 

[ChristineES]

Details mean no parable. The parable of the sower didn't include how big a bag of seed to use.
(This is the most facepalms I have ever done in one post, it's a record.)

]

Right back at you. Can't you use your imagination? There were no literal seeds, either, that's a detail. I don't want to debate with my Christian brothers and sisters in a difference of opinion. I don't know everything and I already said that I don't. If you believe it is literal, then you have that right. If I believe that it MAY be a parable, then I have that right, too. I want to end this now.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm wasting away again in stupidville
Looking for something that's sane
Some people say that there's a Christian to blame
But I know
It's my own damn fault

 

[Father Heathen]

Again, your source ignores everything we know about geology, hydrology, and plate tectonics.

Is it common among Global Flood Literalists to be so dishonest in order to support their pseudoscientific claims?

It's ironic that they have to lie in order to defend a book that commands them not to lie.

 

[ChristineES]

Even if King David is sketchy, we can go back to certain earlier events with reasonable accuracy: the Exodus, for instance. The archaeological evidence (and plain old common sense, IMO) tells us that it didn't literally happen.

I think it might actually go back farther than we think. I just don't know. In Exodus, the Tribes of Israel would have been small, as it was one family- I like to take things like that into consideration. But I am not a bible scholar, and I don't know anything and I am not a historian. Maybe I should become one, so I can have better debates with you.