philechat

Flood story was found in virtually all mythologies. The epic of Gilgamesh, the Bible, Chinese myths (two seperate accounts), Roman Pagan text (see Metamorphosis), Hindu mythos, etc. etc. No evidence that a world-wide flood happened however, since the flood level, days, and stories were different. Flood myth is one "archetype" of human imagination, as was dragons, giant races, specific numbers (like 7), dying-and-rising saviors, and so on.

Therefore there's no reason we should assume the Hebrew account to be more truthful than other mythological accounts. In fact, archeological evidences supported the Iliad more closely than it supported the Bible.

Vorkosigan

Vork: Well, sure, there's not always agreement. But you still haven't told me by what principle I am to know which stories are supposed to be taken literally and which allegorically.

Very often it is extremely obvious.
Extremely obvious.

Funk, it's non-obvious. There are major differences across all the Christian sects/beliefs. That is one reason why there are so many denominations.

If you want to look at some cases, feel free to post a reference, and I'll give my current view on it and why.

I don't care what your opinion is on particular cases; it is worthless because you have not supported it with a useful principle. "Obviousness" is not a principle but an aesthetic judgement. What I want to know is by what principle you form your opinion. You still haven't told me by what principle I am to know which stories are supposed to be taken literally and which allegorically.

Vorkosigan

Clutch

FunkyRes, Eh?

Being different perspectives on the same events is completely consistent with being literal. Ted says, "The car moved to my left." Fred says, "The car moved to my right". Different perspectives, both literally true.

You seem to try and recover more with the "different perspectives" business than you're entitled to, given the "logical contradiction" business. How, in particular, can "A came before B" and "B came before A" be different perspectives on the same events, without one being false? Was one of the authors travelling at near-light speed in a different frame of reference?

Bottom line: if you adopt a reading so figurative as to make the logical contradiction harmless in light of the authors' poetic intents, there is nothing to the thought that these two stories amount to merely distinct but still potentially *correct* perspectives on some single set of events. If they aspire to truth, they are jointly incoherent. If they don't aspire to truth, then they don't aspire to truth period. And that doesn't seem like a way of defending scripture; it seems like a way of conceding the atheist's point rather precisely.

Jimmy Higgins

Oy! The First Story of Creation and Second Story of Creation are not merely different perspectives. There are significant differences.

1)God imposes no prohibition in the First Story, tells man to be free. God imposes a prohibition in the Second Story, tells man not to learn difference between good and bad.

2)Order of creation changes.

3)No indication that creation of woman varied from man.

And this ignores how man is virtually irrelevent in the first story of creation. Of course, the Second Story was written first, go figure.

-----------

As for the number 7, and I haven't seen anyone else say this, is clearly regarding the heavenly objects in the sky that followed the same path. Aka, Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Note the remaining planets weren't discovered until much later. Astronomy and religion are closely matched together.

Clutch said: Not likely, light was invented until the story had started.

Jayhawker Soule

Oy veh indeed! Might I further suggest reading the two versions using Young's Literal Translation.