Here I am, at it again. Questioning the literalness of the bible.
I have alway thought that there is no way that the story of the flood and the arc can be literal. I guess it could be a "miracle" - outside the bounds of science and natural law - in the eyes of bible believers. But there is not enough water in the world, enough space in the arc, etc., in light of what we know today, for it to be literal.
Noah’s arc religious view –
Secular / historic view (and religious)
40 days of rain and 150 days on the water is a long time!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have a suggestion.... Instead of reading everyone elses opinion of the bible, how about going to a bible study. When I discuss a book or a movie, I get all kinds of opinions all over the board about how good it is. The "rotten tomato" ratings and I sometimes agree and sometimes we are totally on opposite ends of likes and dislikes. The bible has continued to be on the best seller list for at least the 20 years I have been reading and studying it. You have all the oppinions of other people from all angles on Noahs Ark, but have you studied it yourself to see what you think?
I have been part of a bible study for about 20 years now. It is based in Texas, but has classes all over the world. There are evening mens classes in Danville CA and Menlo Park CA. We are currently working our way through the book of Matthew. Next year we study in the old testament. It is non denominational so no church stuff is talked about. We never talk about books or anything other than our study that week so as to not get side tracked with topics we have not all had the chance to study. We get homework, then have a discussion in groups of no more than 15 people, then go to a lecture. The whole thing lasts 2 hours and is structured enough to always get out on time. There are 7 different years of study that cover 4 years in the new testament and 3 in the old. It runs from the middle of sept to the middle of may. Everyone around the whole world studies the same lessons the same weeks. Therefore, if you were in it you and I would be studing the same chapter of Matthew at the same time. Elizabeth is in a class in Chicago so we periodically discuss what we are learning, or what our lecture was about. It really is pretty cool, and amazing the depth of study. In some places, they will give college credit for the study.
Anyway, think about it. Then you can see for yourself what scripture says instead of continuing with the Catholic thinking of letting someone else tell you how to think and what the bible says of does not say.
Must run for now... God Bless!!
love, Mary
Thanks for the input, Mary.
However, I have already read enough of the bible, not all of it nor am I a scholar, to know that it conflicts with scientific findings in so many ways that it cannot be true in every respect. I am much more persuaded by the science. The bible may have some good history, it does have some good philosophy, some good teachings to help guide one’s behavior toward others, but it appears to me that there are internal conflicts, too, although I realize they get explained away by some scholars while other scholars acknowledge some of the stories as metaphors for teaching rather than literal facts.
As to the arc, I am not relying on Catholics or any interpretations of others - just common sense. We now know how numerous are the species of animals and plants, how much two of everything would weigh, and they just wouldn’t fit in an arc of the size described (not to mention food for them). Many engineers say that it would be very hard to build a wooden boat that large that was seaworthy for that long. We know how much water exists on this planet and it is not enough to cover the earth with 20,000+ feet of water to cover all the mountains.
So it would take a miracle on many levels. Not only to get them in the boat, and to co-exist on the boat, but to get the animals to Noah from all over the world and the various climates. How about all the species of frogs, salamanders, moles, insects, and plants, etc. Even if only the root types of animals were collected that could allow evolution into all the sub-types after the flood, how could that happen in 5,000 yrs? And we know human bodies do not last as long as some of the bible characters are supposed to have lived. Only recently have life expectancies exceeded 100 yrs. More miracles.
Now there is a chance that there was some kind of major flood way back in history and that is why the flood story shows up in so many diverse cultures, but it probably was not as big or worldwide as the stories have come to exaggerate.
The bottom line is I prefer to believe the science rather than the bible stories, but you and others can believe in the bible’s version.
I am concerned, tho, about those who won’t modify their beliefs when confronted with scientific fact – i.e., every scientist with an ounce of geologic training doesn’t believe that the earth is only about 6,000 yrs. old as many of the bible literalists believe, but rather sees volumes of evidence Earth is billions of year old. You have to believe they are all wrong, that radio carbon dating is wrong after decades of repeated confirmation by many researchers, and that all geology has been misinterpreted for a few centuries – you get the picture.
And the same is true of evolution. It is way past a “theory” as misdefined by fundamentalists (what a scientific theory really is - http://wilstar.com/theories.htm ). Evolution is a scientific fact that has been confirmed by so many discoveries, has predicted other discoveries and characteristics of life forms, explains so well how life has developed over time, and is the basis of all modern biology and genetics. Yes, there are gaps in knowledge, but there were a lot more gaps 20 years ago. We may never know the exact way a certain cell developed, or how the first spark of life arose in some virus 3 billion years ago, but it is pretty clear that the big picture has been figured out.
Or the big bang!
Sorry to sound so argumentative (and get so long winded), but this is the place to openly express our views, so I am glad we both can speak freely. I know I won’t change your mind, and you aren’t likely to change mine, but at least we know each other better by knowing what we think and how we arrived at our conclusions.
Much Love, Michael
Did you know that Thomas Jefferson wrote a version of the Bible? I thought this was interesting.
Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus or any of the supernatural aspects of the Bible. But by stripping away everything but the teachings of Jesus, he said he found "The most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."
Sounds sort of like SF Kid.
Hate to get in the middle of things in your loving family, but I just thought I'd add something to the discourse.
From Wikipedia:
"The Jefferson Bible, or 'The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth' as it is formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to glean the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. Jefferson wished to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1] In essence, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus' divinity, the Trinity, the resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible.[2]
"In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson states that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. He proposes beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the ethics of the Jews, and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omitting the question of his deity." Jefferson explains that he really doesn't have the time, and urges the task on Priestley as the person best equipped to accomplish the task.[3]
Jefferson accomplished a more limited goal in 1804 with “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth,” the predecessor to 'Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.'[4] He described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813:
“ In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines. [3] ”
Jefferson frequently expressed discontent with this earlier version, however. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth represents the fulfillment of his desire to produce a more carefully assembled edition."
Let me add that while SFKid may have his essences and emanations, please don't call him a Gamalielite (or a Plotinest, for that matter, although I sometimes suspect him of hatching plots).
Enjoyed encountering Ben at the Dairy Queen Friday, after the game.
Post a Comment