Jimmy Higgins

Please repeat the references.
You're kidding right? Genesis 6:17
That could also arguably be used to show how they thought the earth was flat as well.
Genesis 7:18
Genesis 7:19
Genesis 7:24 - 8:1
Another indicator of a flat earth ideal as well.
Now please tell me, is it literal or metaphorical and please explain why.

However, the problem lays in why you feel the way you do. On one hand you have to feel something is metaphorical, merely because it wouldn't bold well under scrutinization. Besides, this doesn't even address whether the metaphor is a legend or is determined by the author as being literally true.
Oh I don't know specifcally what this statement is supposed to mean. At first you say that you subscribe to the JEDP hypothesis. Yet you think Moses is the original author of Genesis, which really isn't part of the JEDP hypothesis at all. That'd be like me saying I believe in evolution, but I don't think we evolved from monkeys.

Othe cultures? Are you mad?! When I first read the bible, the purpose of the patriarchal stories was clear to me. The worship of the foreign gods, the division of where each father lived. It was about the tribes that merged to become the "hebrews", if you'd so kindly let me use that word in simplified terms. To think that ancient stories had no real importance in the formation of Genesis is ludcrious, it was also the opinion of Wellhausen, so you two have more in common than you'd expect. However, small signs of ancient scripts have survived the years. Take Jacob's struggle at Penuel, Genesis 32:27Now why exactly would an angel fear the daylight? That is certainly a sign of ancient script, merely based on how old the concept was. These signs exist in Genesis. And to dismiss their existence is as bold a mistake as to dismiss their worth. And to assume that Moses wrote is nuts. Genesis 36:31ff includes the kings of Edom until David! (Genesis, Hermann Gunkel, pg viii)

My mistake. I assumed that you would have immediately recognized the most important name in the 20th century as far as biblical commentators are concerned. I'll spell out the other two as well, so as to their being no confusion: Gerad von Rad and Martin Noth.

Difference is motives. I read and study to learn. I don't really care what the conclusion is, as long as it is truthful. You however are bound by your faith that won't allow for all conclusions. I've dealt with christian brothers who weren't afraid of the truth. While their overall conclusion differed with mine in the god category, it did not interfere with their venture for truth.

Thomas Cassidy

Not exactly. I believe metaphor to be metaphor because it seems so obvious to me that it is. Regarding the "firmament" I have already explained that the word simply means "an expanse" roughly equivalent to our word "sky." The word "windows" or "floodgates" is obviously a metaphor just as "cloud burst" is a metaphor. The principle of metaphorical language holds true for all human communication, including the God-to-human communication we call the bible.In my opinion Noah was a real, historical person, whose life is recounted to teach us about the consequences of sin, and the provisions of God for the righteous.In my opinion, historic personages.Again, in my opinion, Babel was historic.I am not sure I gave you a formula, speculative or otherwise, to appy, nor an educational method, just my personal observations regarding the issue. Then I disagree. Window is, in my opinion, the better translation of the metaphor.

lpetrich

Check out The Flat-Earth Bible by the late Robert Schadewald.

The noncanonical book 1 Enoch goes into much more detail than any of the writers of the canonical OT's books, and one finds in it that the Earth is flat, that the sky is a solid bowl overhead, and that the sky's base has doors for the Sun, Moon, and stars to pass through.

So celestial floodgates would not be totally farfetched.

Jobar

Thomas, many civilizations have had flood stories as part of their mythologies. The best explanation for the European and Asian ones, IMO, is the Black Sea flood.

As an interesting aside, the biggest flood known to geologists was about five million years ago, when the Atlantic broke through the isthmus between Spain and Africa, flooding what is now the Mediterranean. There is a great science fiction story by Poul Anderson, "Gibraltar Falls", which describes this in an awesome (though of course fictionalized) way.

And there is no- repeat, NO- evidence for a world-covering flood anywhere. Try asking yourself- "where would all the water go, after the flood?"

Thomas Cassidy

I read about that about a year ago. Facinating stuff. The sonar soundings of the Black Sea show all sorts of things along what used to be the shoreline.I remember reading that. I have read most of his books. When I was in grad school in Minnesota (he also went to College in Minnesota, but that is about all we have in common. ), the school sent me to a sister school in San Francisco as a teaching fellow. I was sitting at a little coffee shop and saw this guy sitting there with big glasses and a shock of brown hair standing up quite high. I thought I recognized him so I asked him, "Aren't you Poul Anderson." He smiled, said he was, and invited me to sit down! What a very pleasent man! We chatted for about 20 minutes, then I had to get back to the school. I took the time to let him know that he, along with Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, and Ray Bradbury had given me not only a wonderful childhood, but also a keen interest in intellectual pursuits. He smiled and said, "Thanks. I don't hear that often enough." I read that he died last year. Uh, well, 2001. He was only 74, if I remember correctly. A great loss. I am aware that evidence is remarkable by its absence. However, I understand that those who believe in a global flood feel there is if the existing evidence is interpreted properly, or that most of the evidence was destroyed in the flood itself (seems like a self-serving position to me). And, as I understand their position, they believe that the Earth prior to the flood was much flatter, without high mountains or deep sea beds, and that, as a result of the flood, and the fracturing of the crust, mountains were uplifted, and great, deep sea beds were formed, and that the 70+% of the planet now covered with water is the residual from the flood, drawn off into those deep sea beds formed when the crust ruptured.

Thomas Cassidy

Hmmmm. This is interesting. My reply seems to be missing. Let me look up the references again.

Atmosphere, Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. [First Heaven]

Outer Space, Genesis 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. [Second Heaven]

The Abode of God, 2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; ) such an one caught up to the third heaven. [Third Heaven]

scigirl

You say a whole reply is missing? That is strange. When did you post this reply - was it in this thread? Do you remember the contents of it?

I don't remember reading the actual bible verses you say were missing - however, that doesn't mean they weren't there (I sometimes skim threads when I moderate and certainly I don't remember everything). Is it possible you posted them in a different thread? Or maybe something screwy is going on with the VB code...

scigirl

RufusAtticus

How is it so "obviously" a metaphor? You can compare it to modern speech if you want, but we're not talking about modern English. Do you have any evidence that 'arubboh was often employed metaphorically or that the ancient Hebrews understood this passage to be metaphorical? This is very important since if the passage was not "obviously" metaphorical to them, why should it be so obviously metaphorical to us?

Furthermore, the "windows of heaven" are obviously metaphorical because they don't make sense litterally, but other parts of Genesis which are equally improbable (A&E, Noah, and Bable) are historical. Is it simply your opinion that makes you distinguish between the two? If so, I hope you remember that a man's interpretation will never be the "Word of God (TM)."

So an 'arubboh that opens up and allows water to flow through it is best translated as a "window" instead of a "floodgate." Uh-hu . . . Sure translating it as "window" would be metaphorical, but traslating as "floodgate" would be literal.

Jobar

Ah, I'd like to mention that this thread has wandered very far from its original topic. Fellow mods, might it not be appropriate to close it, since we seem to be having problems with it?

Thomas, are you a Biblical literalist? If you are, and are also a science fiction fan- well, you are a rara avis indeed, and I hope you stick around and talk to us. We get plenty of ranters who come here foaming at the mouth about how we are evil-utionists, but few who can make as much sense as you seem to.

We, of course, think you are incredibly mistaken, but it's refreshing to see someone who can spell well come discuss the subject from the creationist side. (Plus I am teeth-grindingly jealous that you got to meet Poul Anderson. I've been a fan since 1964, and the only even slightly famous writer I've really spoken to was Michael Bishop.)

Thomas Cassidy

Moderately. Meleagris gallopavo? Thank you. I try, but sometimes revert to an avatar of my fundamentalist education. I suspect that thought may be reciprocal. Arrrrrggggghhhhhh! [Rant]You have stumbled on one of my pet peaves! IDIOT Christians who can't spell, don't know the difference between their and there, hear and here, your and you're, to and too, etc. etc. It is bad enough that most of the world thinks we are idiots, we don't need half-wits like that proving it! [/Rant]It was an interesting encounter.