Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gawen · 03-21-2006, 05:59 PM

Does anyone here actually think it fascinating that a world that's 3/4's water has such a fable? Would it be just as fascinating that a mostly 'dry' world would have a fable that describes the world being destroyed by fire?

John Kesler · 03-21-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Likewise the author of 2 Peter believed the flood to be historical. In chapter 2, sandwiched between the stories of the rebellious angels and Sodom and Gomorrah, both clearly believed to be actual events, the author stated in verse five that, "[God] did not spare the ancient world, even though he saved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood on a world of the ungodly."

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Hmm..I had actually seen the author of 2 peter as not beleiving in a literal deluge.

He writes the that world was formed out of water. With Joseph Campbell I would agree that this indicates the author saw it in mythological terms rather than literal terms.

"Peter" mentions three successive events in chapter two: the rebellion of the angels (from Genesis 6:1-4), the flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Without begging the question, what indication does "Peter" give to indicate that he considers two to be actual events, but the one in the middle to be mythological? Second, your reference to the world being formed out of water comes from chapter three, but there is nothing anymore "mythological" about "Peter's" description of the world's origin than his source material--Genesis 1. Compare:

Quote:

2 Peter 3:5
5 They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water,

Genesis 1:6-9
6 And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.9 And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.

By the way, the very next verse in 2 Peter 3 says that, "the world of that time was deluged with water and perished," again giving no indication that "Peter" thought that the flood was "mythological."

judge · 03-21-2006, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

"Peter" mentions three successive events in chapter two: the rebellion of the angels (from Genesis 6:1-4), the flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Without begging the question, what indication does "Peter" give to indicate that he considers two to be actual events, but the one in the middle to be mythological?

They are all mythological.

There is no reason to be sure he thinks of any of these three as actual events.
In the ancient world these mythological tales were seen as myths, with a mythological function.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Second, your reference to the world being formed out of water comes from chapter three, but there is nothing anymore "mythological" about "Peter's" description of the world's origin than his source material--Genesis 1. Compare:

By the way, the very next verse in 2 Peter 3 says that, "the world of that time was deluged with water and perished," again giving no indication that "Peter" thought that the flood was "mythological."

If we look to ancient writings we can definitely find reason to think they would have understood this kind of language differently.

Ages or worlds came and went. When we think of the world , we think of the planet.

Here is an exmaple from a previous discussion that got me thinking this way

Quote:

Originally Posted by amlodhi

"For from today new feasts and customs date,
Because tonight is born Shah Kai Khusrau!
...'Sleep no more, but join the feast
Of Kai Khusrau, the monarch of the world. . .

The whole world is my kingdom, all is mine
From Pisces downward to the Bull's head."

(Note that Kai Khusrau is monarch of the whole world; whereas, "From Pisces downward to the Bull's head" is a measure of time, not geography.)

[Firdausi, Warner trans., vol. 2, pg. 342 & pg. 407, (parenthetical comment mine)

the context can be found in this thread

FatherMithras · 03-21-2006, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spitfire

It goes something like this. The evidence you present which proves beyond any doubt to you that something did indeed happen a certain way to me is actually evidence that it MAY (or MAY not have) have happened that way, when there is also evidence supporting other possibilities, only one of which being the considerable agreement in cultural traditions all over the world that a really major flood occured unlike any flood there has ever been since then. We weren't there. We didn't see it happen. How I see it, there is evidence that it may or may not have happened. So it does indeed take a certain amount of [that awful word] to believe that yes it did but at the same time I am not believing in something which I feel really has been proven beyond any doubt not to have happened.

Ah, so it's a "I don't believe the evidence because I assume evidence must support me somewhere" thing. Hmmm... Psychology....hmmm...

One important fact about the flood is there's not even enough water fr it to be possible.

Joan of Bark · 03-21-2006, 10:18 PM

Remember that for the ancients "the world" was a much smaller place than it is today. If there was a major flood in the near east, I'm sure it would be described as encompassing "the whole world". I'm not sure how literally Catholics take the story now, but I'm sure the Palestinian Jews of the early c.e. period would have taken it literally.

Tigers! · 03-22-2006, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawen

Does anyone here actually think it fascinating that a world that's 3/4's water has such a fable? Would it be just as fascinating that a mostly 'dry' world would have a fable that describes the world being destroyed by fire?

Not fascinating just logical. (don't know if you are being facetious)

Spitfire · 03-22-2006, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Spitfire, one reason a worldwide flood couldn't have happened was that there isn't enough water in the world to cover the mountains. Even if all glaciers and icecaps melt the rise in sea level won't submerge much of the land area. But if you believe in a God that can turn rocks into water as in Psalm 114 that won't be a hindrance to you.

I'll be honest, I'm not really concerned with the logistics of this particular matter. Like someone said in another thread, there's no way Jesus could have come back from the dead after being dead for three days. Well, that's why it was considered a mircale and proof of his divinity. Even if there isn't enough water on earth and it didn't all come from below ground (as some people theorize) God could have produced all the water he needed.

Quote:

OTOH I don't see why you should take accounts of wide flooding from many different cultures to mean the whole land area of earth was submerged at one time. These stories come from cultures that were not aware of the geography of the whole earth.

I think it is definitely possible that the flood was local rather than global, you and Joan of Bark are right that it would have seemed to cover the whole world to the people of the time, who only knew of a relatively small area. But I haven't ruled out the possibility of a global flood either. And I don't consider it to be a really important issue either.

John Kesler · 03-22-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

"Peter" mentions three successive events in chapter two: the rebellion of the angels (from Genesis 6:1-4), the flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Without begging the question, what indication does "Peter" give to indicate that he considers two to be actual events, but the one in the middle to be mythological?

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

They are all mythological.

There is no reason to be sure he thinks of any of these three as actual events.
In the ancient world these mythological tales were seen as myths, with a mythological function.

And just what proof is there that the "ancient world" regarded these events as myths? What criteria did the ancients, or do you, use to determine what events are mythological, since there is no indication, either in the original narratives or in the NT allusions to them, that these were considered anything but historical occurences? How, for example, do you reconcile Jesus' words in Matthew 11:23-24 with a mythological Sodom?

Quote:

23 And you, Capernaum,will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I tell you that on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you."

Josephus seems to think that Sodom's destruction was an actual event. Here is what he writes:

Quote:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...phus/war4.html
The length of this lake is five hundred and eighty furlongs, where it is extended as far as Zoar in Arabia; and its breadth is a hundred and fifty. The country of Sodom borders upon it. It was of old a most happy land, both for the fruits it bore and the riches of its cities, although it be now all burnt up. It is related how, for the impiety of its inhabitants, it was burnt by lightning; in consequence of which there are still the remainders of that Divine fire, and the traces [or shadows] of the five cities are still to be seen, as well as the ashes growing in their fruits; which fruits have a color as if they were fit to be eaten, but if you pluck them with your hands, they dissolve into smoke and ashes. And thus what is related of this land of Sodom hath these marks of credibility which our very sight affords us.

Dismissing troublesome stories with "it's all mythological" isn't a very satisfying answer.

FatherMithras · 03-22-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

But I haven't ruled out the possibility of a global flood either. And I don't consider it to be a really important issue either.

The difference between atheists and the religious. We care about the truth, and the impossibility of an idea makes it untrue. The truth is the most important thing, not our beliefs.

Buster Daily · 03-22-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

Dismissing troublesome stories with "it's all mythological" isn't a very satisfying answer.

Many stories that we clearly see as myth were probably not invented as such. Myths evolve from imaginative people telling and re-telling stories that they believe to be basically true many many times over. Perhaps they use a little carefully placed hyperbole here and there but each teller probably thinks he is telling a more or less true story.

Rather than saying, "Did person A think story B was a myth?" it's probably less muddy to say, "Did person A think story B really happened?"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-21-2006, 05:59 PM	#21
Gawen Contributor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart Posts: 10,326	Does anyone here actually think it fascinating that a world that's 3/4's water has such a fable? Would it be just as fascinating that a mostly 'dry' world would have a fable that describes the world being destroyed by fire?

03-21-2006, 10:18 PM	#25
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Remember that for the ancients "the world" was a much smaller place than it is today. If there was a major flood in the near east, I'm sure it would be described as encompassing "the whole world". I'm not sure how literally Catholics take the story now, but I'm sure the Palestinian Jews of the early c.e. period would have taken it literally.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.