 |
Cop out. He was, I think, trying to disparage those who believe in Gen. 3 by claiming we believe in "talking snakes". With all due respect, that's completely untrue.Quote:
He was speaking generically, metaphorically.
You asked about the depth of water and the length of time. I answered both. It would add nothing to an allegory. Sometimes it would nice to see you post, "Well golly. I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing it out." And plainly, you knew neither of them.
Ooooh, just ONE talking snake! I get it!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Of course it does! The richer it is with details, the stronger the symbolism and more obvious the truth/hidden meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No, you don't get it at all. It requires objectivity.Quote:
Ooooh, just ONE talking snake! I get it!
OK. How do thousands of feet of water versus hundreds of feet of water and 10 months versus forty days make the symbolism stronger and the truth/hidden meaning more obvious?Quote:
The richer it is with details, the stronger the symbolism and more obvious the truth/hidden meaning.
Incorrect. We're not talking about belief, we're talking about having an open mind. If we live in a closed system where such things don't happen, well, then, we do. But that can't be proven. In fact, science is telling us in more and more ways that we live in an open system where lots of improbably things can happen, and perhaps have.Quote:
You wrote "Whether you believe the events happened or not is irrelevant to understanding the text." Immediately before that, you wrote "If you insist on approaching a book of that kind with a view that says "such things don't happen" renders your approach pointless".
The first sentence says belief or disbelief is irrelevant. The second sentence says disbelief ("such things don't happen") renders the approach pointless. Which is it? Both sentences can't be true.
It's about having an open mind and allowing for possibilities that don't necessarily fit one's current worldview.
Ha ha, you're funny!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Lots of water + a long time (keep it simple and believable).Quote:
OK. How do thousands of feet of water versus hundreds of feet of water and 10 months versus forty days make the symbolism stronger and the truth/hidden meaning more obvious?
In other words, you don't know.Quote:
Lots of water + a long time (keep it simple and believable).
Even worse, how does referring to thousands of feet of water and many months in an enormous ark with thousands of animals make the narrative "simple and believable"? If being believable was the objective, then it would have been a local flood of a few days or weeks, and the family would have survived on a raft. "The Story of Noah's Raft" would have worked just as well as an allegory.
Incorrect? Are you serious? "Belief" was in YOUR comments, where, as I pointed out, they are self-contradictory.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
So a closed system is a system where "such things don't happen"? You're confusing closed and open systems with fantasy and reality.
DW, I get a big kick out of your anti-Trump cartoons and comments on your Facebook page, but religion is not your strong suit. I'm referring to the objective examination of religion, not your religious faith. But when it leads you to strange conclusions like above, it's time to take stock. No offense.
Always the insult.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The Hebrews were very clever and creative storytellers.Quote:
Even worse, how does referring to thousands of feet of water and many months in an enormous ark with thousands of animals make the narrative "simple and believable"? If being believable was the objective, then it would have been a local flood of a few days or weeks, and the family would have survived on a raft. "The Story of Noah's Raft" would have worked just as well as an allegory.
No, it was merely an observation which did seem to be correct. I had asked, "How do thousands of feet of water versus hundreds of feet of water and 10 months versus forty days make the symbolism stronger and the truth/hidden meaning more obvious?" Your reply [Lots of water + a long time (keep it simple and believable)] was kind of nonsensical relative to the question.Quote:
Always the insult.
A non-answer to, "...how does referring to thousands of feet of water and many months in an enormous ark with thousands of animals make the narrative 'simple and believable'?" That seems to be a habit with you.Quote:
The Hebrews were very clever and creative storytellers.
It was a LOCAL flood, not a worldwide one!!! The Flood story is an allegory, a story about a man who built a boat to keep his family and maybe some animals safe during flooding caused by the annual snowmelt from nearby mountains.
All speculation. Adding exclamation marks does not add support for your idea. Even worse, if it was merely a local flood, then the entire narrative is just a wildly exaggerated lie.Quote:
It was a LOCAL flood, not a worldwide one!!! The Flood story is an allegory
Two unanswered questions.
"How do thousands of feet of water versus hundreds of feet of water and 10 months versus forty days make the symbolism stronger and the truth/hidden meaning more obvious?"
"...how does referring to thousands of feet of water and many months in an enormous ark with thousands of animals make the narrative 'simple and believable'?"
These are far removed from being thoughtful answers. The first one doesn't even make sense since more water and more time does nothing to make the story more simple or believable. In fact, it would do the opposite.
Lots of water + a long time (keep it simple and believable).
The Hebrews were very clever and creative storytellers.
And with that statement, all further discussion is shut down by definition. I thought you were better than that.Quote:
So a closed system is a system where "such things don't happen"? You're confusing closed and open systems with fantasy and reality.
I knew you were coming closer and closer to bailing out. You had no place else to go after painting yourself into a corner. You did surprise me with your gratuitous insult - the mark of someone who has run out of ideas. I see you preferred insult to cogent argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
I return the insult. Sadly.
If serving up an insult is the mark of someone who has run out of ideas, then you sure just seemed to place yourself in that category.Quote:
your gratuitous insult - the mark of someone who has run out of ideas. I return the insult. Sadly, with you, it fits.
At any rate, DW is the least likely person on this site to throw out a gratuitous insult.
Not bailing at all. That statement you made is the kind that is designed to cut off any further discussion. I merely acknowledged it. If it felt like an insult, maybe ask why.Quote:
I knew you were coming closer and closer to bailing out. You had no place else to go after painting yourself into a corner. You did surprise me with your gratuitous insult - the mark of someone who has run out of ideas. I see you preferred insult to cogent argument.
I return the insult. Sadly.
I'm happy to keep discussing, but such all-encompassing statements of dismissal like this
make it impossible. You just wrote off everything with a few keystrokes in a way that leaves no room for discussion.Quote:
You're confusing closed and open systems with fantasy and reality.
I'm surprised you can't see that.
Without rehashing X# of previous posts, I will get right to the heart of the matter. (First, a note on the "insult". Your acknowledgement of my statement was not the insult. The insult was suggesting I was "better than that".)
After discussing a specific Bible passage with various methods - based on tested analysis and accepted methods of examination - God was brought into the equation which added a faith basis to the issue.
To wit: Since the Bible is a book all about an almighty God deliberately intervening in that framework and doing things that are contrary to what we would call "common sense", that's not going to be the best way to approach it."
Faith-based is fine but it trumps any non-faith approach including a common sense rational approach since there is no way to challenge that method except by denying God, unless it is specific and then it can be challenged internally from the Bible itself. It is another form of "the Bible tells me so" but loftier. That is how I understood your statement above.
If you forego the idea that "anything can happen" using that as a support for the passage under discussion, then I will refrain from commenting on a closed and/or open system. That can be a separate subject which I will be happy to explore.
God is the subject of the whole thing. The entire collection from cover to cover claims to be people at various points in human history having encounters with a being greater than themselves. The moment you disallow such a possibility, you cut off all discussion. Precisely my point.Quote:
To wit: Since the Bible is a book all about an almighty God deliberately intervening in that framework and doing things that are contrary to what we would call "common sense", that's not going to be the best way to approach it."
It's impossible to discuss a written work without discussing its principal topic.
You are defining "common sense" in a way that excludes the entire subject of the book. I'm not sure how we're supposed to discuss it under those circumstances. And not everyone agrees with your definition of "common sense".Quote:
Faith-based is fine but it trumps any non-faith approach including a common sense rational approach since there is no way to challenge that method
I don't disallow the possibility. I only ask that when you offer God as a support/proof of your position, you present it with evidence for what you claim, rather than just stating it as a matter of faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
I certainly don't think "common sense" excludes the entire subject of the book. By "common sense", I simply meant a logical, rational approach to examine the book's contents. My understanding of textual criticism and various accepted analyses is that they are supported by logical, rational examination. If I have misled you, I trust this will allay your objections.Quote:
You are defining "common sense" in a way that excludes the entire subject of the book. I'm not sure how we're supposed to discuss it under those circumstances. And not everyone agrees with your definition of "common sense".
Common sense from our view is frequently not God's sense of things.
8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth"
That's a lot.
When did I do that?Quote:
I don't disallow the possibility. I only ask that when you offer God as a support/proof of your position, you present it with evidence for what you claim, rather than just stating it as a matter of faith.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:37 AM. |