FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-25-2008, 11:16 PM   #41
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by judge View Post
If you write a sory about a great flood where the entire world is deluged etc etc....because this story conveys another meaning, perhaps a change in psychological posture of a culture, then does that make it a lie if someone else years afterwards, sees it as a "newspaper report"?
But, how do you know if the author did NOT deliberately make a false claim about a flood?

And the flood story as written conveys no other meaning than the entire world was flooded. Trying to now claim that there is some other meaning to the flood is simply making stuff up.

The church writers did not claim the flood was figurative.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 11:44 AM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: home
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
And the flood story as written conveys no other meaning than the entire world was flooded. Trying to now claim that there is some other meaning to the flood is simply making stuff up.
You don't know that, because you don't know the intention of the author nor how it was received by the intended audience at the time the story was written. Was the story of the flood perceived as literally true? Not true but with moral meaning such as 'The Turtle and the Hare'? Did the author intend the audience to believe the historical truth of the story (despite the fact that s/he knew it was fictional) as a means to change accepted morals and behaviors (ie was it a work of propaganda)?
Anat is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 01:05 PM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anat View Post
Quote:
And the flood story as written conveys no other meaning than the entire world was flooded. Trying to now claim that there is some other meaning to the flood is simply making stuff up.
You don't know that, because you don't know the intention of the author nor how it was received by the intended audience at the time the story was written. Was the story of the flood perceived as literally true? Not true but with moral meaning such as 'The Turtle and the Hare'? Did the author intend the audience to believe the historical truth of the story (despite the fact that s/he knew it was fictional) as a means to change accepted morals and behaviors (ie was it a work of propaganda)?
This writer seems to take it literally:

[3] First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions
[4] and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation."
[5] They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water,
[6] through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
[7] But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

[2 Peter 3]
bacht is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 02:43 PM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: home
Posts: 3,715
Default

At the time the author of 2 Peter wrote that the story of the flood has been around for a few centuries. The question is what the author and hir audience thought when the story originated (who knows when) and when it was written down in its various editions.
Anat is offline  
Old 11-26-2008, 04:38 PM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 6,471
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by judge View Post
If you write a sory about a great flood where the entire world is deluged etc etc....because this story conveys another meaning, perhaps a change in psychological posture of a culture, then does that make it a lie if someone else years afterwards, sees it as a "newspaper report"?
But, how do you know if the author did NOT deliberately make a false claim about a flood?
We don't, but the principle of charity (recommended for fair and respectful behavior in argument) states that we avoid accusing them of lying when other explanations are just as likely, unless we have proof.

Quote:
And the flood story as written conveys no other meaning than the entire world was flooded. Trying to now claim that there is some other meaning to the flood is simply making stuff up.
EDIT: Anat already answered this, and well.

Quote:
The church writers did not claim the flood was figurative.
When was the flood story written? And when were the church fathers writing about it?

d
diana is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:29 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.