[jlisenbe]

He was speaking generically, metaphorically.

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.

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

Ooooh, just ONE talking snake! I get it!

You asked about the depth of water and the length of time. I answered both. It would add nothing to an allegory.

Of course it does! The richer it is with details, the stronger the symbolism and more obvious the truth/hidden meaning.

[jlisenbe]

Ooooh, just ONE talking snake! I get it!

No, you don't get it at all. It requires objectivity.

The richer it is with details, the stronger the symbolism and more obvious the truth/hidden meaning.

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?

[dwashbur]

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.

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.

It's about having an open mind and allowing for possibilities that don't necessarily fit one's current worldview.

[Wondergirl]

No, you don't get it at all. It requires objectivity.

Ha ha, you're funny!

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?

Lots of water + a long time (keep it simple and believable).

[jlisenbe]

Lots of water + a long time (keep it simple and believable).

In other words, you don't know.

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.

[Athos]

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.

It's about having an open mind and allowing for possibilities that don't necessarily fit one's current worldview.

Incorrect? Are you serious? "Belief" was in YOUR comments, where, as I pointed out, they are self-contradictory.

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.

[Wondergirl]

In other words, you don't know.

Always the insult.

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.

The Hebrews were very clever and creative storytellers.

[jlisenbe]

Always the insult.

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.

The Hebrews were very clever and creative storytellers.

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.

[Wondergirl]

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.

[jlisenbe]

It was a LOCAL flood, not a worldwide one!!! The Flood story is an allegory

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.

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.

[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.

And with that statement, all further discussion is shut down by definition. I thought you were better than that.

[Athos]

And with that statement, all further discussion is shut down by definition. I thought you were better than that.

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.

[jlisenbe]

your gratuitous insult - the mark of someone who has run out of ideas. I return the insult. Sadly, with you, it fits.

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.

At any rate, DW is the least likely person on this site to throw out a gratuitous insult.

[dwashbur]

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.

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.

I'm happy to keep discussing, but such all-encompassing statements of dismissal like this

You're confusing closed and open systems with fantasy and reality.

make it impossible. You just wrote off everything with a few keystrokes in a way that leaves no room for discussion.
I'm surprised you can't see that.

[Athos]

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.

[dwashbur]

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."

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.

It's impossible to discuss a written work without discussing its principal topic.

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

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".

[Athos]

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.

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.

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".

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.

[jlisenbe]

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.

[dwashbur]

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.

When did I do that?