Jan Haugland

Popular science or scholarship always leaves a lot to be desired, but I for one am happy that someone presented the popular version of the scholarly consensus on the Biblical flood story.

That there was never any global flood is pretty much beyond serious debate. Flooding of all the planet within the last 4-5000 years would have left unmistakable traces that simply aren't there.

However, the "local flood scenario" is not feasible if it is put forth as a means to defend the truth of Genesis. Sure, you could argue that some local flooding once upon a time inspired flood legends like the Gilgamesh epos.

But if you mean that there ever was a literal ark, and that Noah was a real person, then a local flood scenario doesn't work.

I wrote an article about that some time back: Does Genesis Teach a Local Flood?



- Jan

...who rants and raves every day at Secular Blasphemy

Carrie

Tercel,

Much of the Bible was and is taken literally, where perhaps it should not be taken that way. The flood story being a good example. Also, I do not take the story of Adam and Eve to be literal. I don't think that story ever actually happened.

But look at the consequences that have resulted from some stories being taken literally. Such as the story of Adam and Eve:

Eve ate the apple, therefore God said, "Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you." Paul later supported this by saying that women should be submissive. His reasoning was that, "Adam was formed first, then Eve," and "it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

So in Jedeo-Christian culture, women were always supposed to be submissive to men, and the men would use the story of Eve as a rationalization for this.

Women often couldn't choose who to marry. They couldn't seek a divorce. Their husbands could have many wives but they couldn't have many husbands. Women normally couldn't own property. Women were property. And none of that was right. But it's supported by the Bible.

So if certain stories are NOT literal, people shouldn't be living as if they are. It's just that it's not CLEAR to many people which stories are literal and which ones are not. And taking the Bible literally has done a lot of damage.

If you want to believe the part about Jesus rising from the dead, go ahead and believe that. And if you believe that some parts of the Bible are figurative, then good for you, I have no problem with that.

But as for me, it doesn't seem that the story of Jesus' resurrection is literal. I don't think it actually happened. It sounds pretty outlandish to me. (Lots of exaggeration and wild miracles). And you said THAT will tell you that a story didn't literally happen.

Tercel

??? The resurrection is not a wild miracle. (How is it "lots" of wild miracles?) "Miracles" that occur for no aparent reason I believe are very dubious. (If God is going to intervene majorly in human affairs He'd surely have a reason) The resurrection has a great many theological reasons associated with it: It is the single least "wild" (in the sense I suggested) miracle claim in all of recorded history.

Rhea

The resurrection has a REASON? This makes it less WILD?

I don't agree with that statement.

A resurrection story serves only to trivialize the "sacrifice". (what kind of sacrifice is your death if you don't die from it?) The resurrection is not needed, there is no reason for it. If a god wanted to show his power, he would resurrect someone besides himself. And THAT would have a greater reason. Wait, didn't that happen? Wasn't someone _else_ brought back from the dead? Further trivializing the resurrection story of Yeshua.

No, there is no REASON behind the resurrection of Yeshua. It is a wild tale that serves no purpose, indeed, a tale that trivializes other acts which did serve a purpose.

I don't see how your argument can be supported...

(wow, that really looked awful with "ressurrection" [sic] misspelled all the way through it... sorry folks!)