Interpreting the Bible: literally or metaphorically?

B - interesting that you can't choose Both answers at once!

Is God male, with a beard and genitals etc. I would say yes and no.

Bren

l***@hotmail.com

2009-04-01 01:16:14 UTC

Post by news
Is God male, with a beard and genitals etc. I would say yes and no.

And this would be typical of an Eastern mystic. This would be
a classic example of a Zen Buddhist statement such as DT Suzuki.

Brenda, no matter what name you use to post under, we still
recognize your mutistic replies. Your mysticism is absurd in
that, as illustrated in the present post, you deny one of the
First Principles, "The Law of Contradiction" or the "Law of the
Excluded Middle," the "Principle of Bivalence." You try
to affirm that reality is ultimately illogical or that logical
contradictions correspond to reality. You assert that God
slash "The Real" transcends the logical categories of
human reason and thought. But you simply cannot deny
the Law of Contradiction without employing. Nor can you
make a statement about God for in doing so you contra-
dict your own assessment that God is beyond reason
and logic. Your posts illustrate a position which adheres
to the claim that you are only employing a technique
in seeking to point to the transcendental Real which
[by your claim] stands outside and beyond all logic and
reason.

But why think that such self-evident truths as the principles
of logic are in face invalid for ultimate reality? The mere
suggestion of your work seems to be both self-refuting
and arbitrary. "God cannot be described by propositions
[i.e. literal interpretation of scripture] governed by the
Principle of Bivalence" is essentially what you claim. And
if such a claim is true, then it is not true since it itself
is a proposition describing God. This is much akin to
those who say that everything reduces to opinion or my
favorite, "All general statements are generally wrong....
including this one." Such claims refute themselves. Of
course, if it is not true, then it is not true as the mystic
alleges, that God cannot be described by propositions
governed by the Principle of Bivalence. Thus if the
claim is not true, it is not true and if it is true it is not
true so that in either case the claim turns out to be
not true.

**Rowland Croucher**

2009-04-01 01:16:15 UTC

Post by news

B - interesting that you can't choose Both answers at once!
Is God male, with a beard and genitals etc. I would say yes and no.
Bren

Hi Bren

I think you'll like this - http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1578.htm

--
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

d***@aol.com

2009-03-31 00:38:49 UTC

On Mar 29, 6:07=A0pm, **Rowland Croucher**
<***@contactemailonwebsite.rutgers.edu> wrote:

Perhaps you should consider adding some catagories like other and
don't know.

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Were Adam and Eve, Noah and Abraham real people? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Can't we split this one up?

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Did all/some/none of Jesus=3D92 parables Jesus actually happen? Yes [ =A0=

] No=3D

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
=A0[ =A0]

Do you get any yes answers to this? I thought even fundamentalists
believe they were examples to make a point.

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
If Jesus was =3D91truly God=3D92 did he, as a baby, =3D91hold the whole u=

nivers=3D

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
e in=3D20
his grasp=3D92? Yes [ ] No [ ]

This question is kind of muddled, perhaps it would be better to ask,
if He chose, could He hold the whole universe in His grasp. Paul
observes that Christ did not (by choice) consider equality to God a
thing to be grasped, held onto. So, even being God, even having the
power to hold the universe, he chose to lay that power aside.

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Did Jesus rise physically from the dead? Yes [ ] No [ ]

If not then we are the most foolish and pityable of all peoples. Could
a "Christian" answer no to this one?

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Did Jesus defy gravity at the Ascension? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Again a muddled question, 1. The creator and master of gravity would
hardly need to "defy" it. 2. The people that saw the Ascension had
limited ways to express what they saw, and there might have been only
the apperance of ascending.

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Does God love Christians more than he loves Muslims? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Hardly the right question, better to ask does he want everyone (He
loves all his children) to know and share in the peace, atonement, and
salvation Christ brought to God's creation. Aren't we told to love our
enemies? That does not mean that we should believe that "all religions
are equal," nor that all offer the hope that Christianity does.
(Curious though, it is only in countries with a Christian heritage
that all religions are allowed to compete in the marketplace of
ideas.)

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Rowland Croucher

Daryl

DKleinecke

2009-04-01 01:16:15 UTC

Post by d***@aol.com
(Curious though, it is only in countries with a Christian heritage
that all religions are allowed to compete in the marketplace of
ideas.)

Like Japan or India?

Or even China - where no religion gets any support and all are equally
unequipped to compete.

And contrariwise are all religions allowed to compete in the
marketplace of idea in countries with a Christian background? I
believe the German Scientologists would complain and I have heard that
evangelicals are given a bad time in Russia.

Why not give up the pretense and say "Christians are not allowed to
compete in the marketplace of ideas in Muslim countries? Isn't that
what you mean?

d***@aol.com

2009-04-02 01:06:59 UTC

Post by d***@aol.com
(Curious though, it is only in countries with a Christian heritage
that all religions are allowed to compete in the marketplace of
ideas.)

Like Japan or India?

India? Perhaps you have not heard of the actions of radical Hindu
parties? I would think you might cite Thailand perhaps,or Korea, Japan
has been notoriously xenophobic and like China which you mention many
of the Oriental countries have hardly any marketplace at all { :-) }

Post by DKleinecke
Or even China - where no religion gets any support and all are equally
unequipped to compete.

Unequipped? The state religion is the state, you are not permitted to
compete.

Post by DKleinecke
And contrariwise are all religions allowed to compete in the
marketplace of idea in countries with a Christian background? =A0I
believe the German Scientologists would complain and I have heard that
evangelicals are given a bad time in Russia.

You consider Russia a Christian country, btw I did not say that all
Christian or countries with a Christian background permitted the free
expression of ideas (or faiths) I simply said that those that do have
such a background.

Post by DKleinecke
Why not give up the pretense and say "Christians are not allowed to
compete in the marketplace of ideas in Muslim countries? =A0Isn't that
what you mean?

That is certainly true, but by no means exclusively in Muslum
countries. The persecution of Christians is much more widespread than
that.

Daryl

**Rowland Croucher**

2009-04-01 01:16:15 UTC

Post by d***@aol.com
On Mar 29, 6:07=A0pm, **Rowland Croucher**
Perhaps you should consider adding some catagories like other and
don't know.

Of course - or even Maybe. This list was meant to be a discussion-starter

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Were Adam and Eve, Noah and Abraham real people? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Can't we split this one up?

Yep: Abraham for most is in a separate historical category...

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Did all/some/none of Jesus=3D92 parables Jesus actually happen? Yes [ =A0=

] No=3D

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
=A0[ =A0]

Do you get any yes answers to this? I thought even fundamentalists
believe they were examples to make a point.

I've met several fundamentalists who say Jesus' parables are all
historically
true, otherwise they're not 'spiritually true'...

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
If Jesus was =3D91truly God=3D92 did he, as a baby, =3D91hold the whole u=

nivers=3D

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
e in=3D20
his grasp=3D92? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Did Jesus rise physically from the dead? Yes [ ] No [ ]

If not then we are the most foolish and pityable of all peoples. Could
a "Christian" answer no to this one?

Of course: most of the Jesus Seminar people would. See the Crossan/N T
Wright and Marcus Borg/ N T Wright books - excerpts in various articles
here: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/catalog/section/jc1.htm
<>

--
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

d***@aol.com

2009-04-02 01:06:59 UTC

Post by **Rowland Croucher**

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Did Jesus rise physically from the dead? Yes [ ] No [ ]

If not then we are the most foolish and pityable of all peoples. Could
a "Christian" answer no to this one?

Of course: most of the Jesus Seminar people would. See the Crossan/N T
Wright and Marcus Borg/ N T Wright books - excerpts in various articles
here:http://jmm.aaa.net.au/catalog/section/jc1.htm
<>

Again we get into the area of what makes a person a Christian. If
simply believing that there was such a rabbi sometime around the first
century suffices, then, as scripture notes, daemons would qualify. IMO
if you can't at least subscribe to the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, I
suppose you could call yourself a Christian, if you want, but you mean
something other than what I do when discussing the subject.

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Shalom/Salaam/Pax! =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Rowland Croucher
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/
Justice for Dawn Rowan -http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/- Hide quoted t=

ext -

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
- Show quoted text -

Eric417

2009-04-06 01:46:01 UTC

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
The following is an exercise I'm doing in a class I'm teaching at the=20
moment. These are common questions, asked by theologians and laypeople.=20
Marcus Borg, for example, would, I think, answer 'no' to all of them=20
(see his book 'The Heart of Christianity'). Fundamentalists/=20
Conservative Evangelicals would answer 'yes' to most/all - illustrating=20
Borg's distinction between the hermeneutics of the 'Earlier Paradigm'=20
and the 'Emerging Paradigm'... Brian McLaren's in between (see 'A=20
Generous Orthodoxy'): his answers would be mixed, I think. Try it with a=20
mature group: it will make for some interesting discussion!
THE BIBLE: WHAT=92S =91NECESSARILY SO=92?
=91The things that you=92re liable to read in the Bible ain=92t necessari=
ly so=92.
Is God a =91giant male=92 with male organs, beard etc.? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Well, God the Son (Jesus) is a human male.
God the Father and God the Holy Spirit aren't.

With this understanding, the answer is YES.

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Was everything created in six 24-hour days? Yes [X] No [ ]
Were Adam and Eve, Noah and Abraham real people? Yes [X] No [ ]
Did the flood-waters in Noah=92s time cover Mount Everest? Yes [X] No [ ]
Did everyone speak the same language before Babel? Yes [X] No [ ]
Did God order the slaughter of the Amalekites =96 men, women, children,=20
infants (1 Samuel 15:3)? Yes [X] No [ ]
Did God regulate/legitimate slavery (in both OT and NT)? Yes [ ] No [ ]

If you are asking if slavery is OK, based on scripture, the answer is
No. I have never understood how a vast minority of people came to
believe the Bible says something different.

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Does God care whether we wear garments made from two kinds of cloth=20
(Leviticus 19:19)? Yes [X] No [ ]
Did everything in the Book of Jonah actually happen? Yes [X] No [ ]
Did all/some/none of Jesus=92 parables Jesus actually happen? Yes [ ] No=
[X]
Did Jesus actually walk on water? Yes [X] No [ ]
If Jesus was =91truly God=92 did he, as a baby, =91hold the whole univers=
e in=20 his grasp=92? Yes [X] No [ ]
Did Jesus rise physically from the dead? Yes [X] No [ ]
Did Jesus defy gravity at the Ascension? Yes [X] No [ ]
Will Jesus at the second coming descend from the sky and take the church=20
to heaven, leaving most of humanity to suffer on earth? Yes [ ] No [ ]

This question cannot be answered because we have no idea whether most
will be unbelievers.

We only know that unbelievers will be sent to hell.

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Is a sick person more likely to be healed if they=92re prayed for? Yes [ =
]=20 No [ ]

We have no idea. We know that God answers all prayers according to His
timetable and good judgement, but those answers may or may not be what
we want or believe to be good.

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Is there a real literal hell where the majority of humans will be=20
tormented forever ? Yes [ ] No [ ]

There is a real literal hell, but we have no idea on whether the
majority of humans will be sent there.

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Does God love Christians more than he loves Muslims? Yes [ ] No [X]

God sent His Son to die for the sins of everyone, past, present, and
future because He loves everyone perfectly.

The Bible is not meant to be taken perfectly literally or perfectly
metaphorically, but according to the plane understanding of the words as
written. The Parables are just that...parables...they didn't happen and
serve to make whatever point Jesus was trying to make. This has always
been the position of the Christian Church that way. To say otherwise is
simple heresy.

**Rowland Croucher**

2009-04-07 00:42:19 UTC

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Is God a =91giant male=92 with male organs, beard etc.? Yes [ ] No [ ]

etc.

Similarly, was the story of Jonah a parable? And Noah?

Shalom/Salaam/Pax! Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/

Justice for Dawn Rowan - http://dawnrowansaga.blogspot.com/

Charles Lindsey

2009-04-08 02:54:34 UTC

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Similarly, was the story of Jonah a parable? And Noah?

Jonah may well have been a parable. Quite possibly Job also.

Noah appears to be a reworking of the Sumerian legend of Gilgamesh, but
written to illustrate God working within his world.

--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: ***@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5

Eric417

2009-04-09 01:16:25 UTC

Post by **Rowland Croucher**

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Is God a =91giant male=92 with male organs, beard etc.? Yes [ ] No [ ]

etc.
Similarly, was the story of Jonah a parable? And Noah?

On what Scriptural basis would one declare them parables?

There isn't any, so the answer to both questions would be No.

DKleinecke

2009-04-10 01:37:50 UTC

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Similarly, was the story of Jonah a parable? And Noah?

On what Scriptural basis would one declare them parables?
There isn't any, so the answer to both questions would be No.

There seems to me to be adequate evidence that the story of Jonah is
political satire. Jonah himself was Jeraboam II's house prophet and
therefore not a respectable person. But I don't think the satire is
aimed at the historical Jonah. It is aimed at somebody else who could
be recognized as the target - maybe Haggai. Placing the book in time
is difficult because the Hebrew is more recent than it would have been
in the original Jonah's time. But it cannot be too late because
Nineveh is remembered - around Haggai's time or even later - maybe as
late as Ezra. But whoever is being satirized should be a prophet or
close enough to one to pass.

The big fish story is an obvious whopper and the entire Nineveh story
a rather good joke.

As to Noah I thought everybody knew his story is an old Sumerian myth
retold in more modern form.

Eric417

2009-04-13 01:02:34 UTC

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Similarly, was the story of Jonah a parable? And Noah?

On what Scriptural basis would one declare them parables?
There isn't any, so the answer to both questions would be No.

There seems to me to be adequate evidence that the story of Jonah is
political satire. Jonah himself was Jeraboam II's house prophet and
therefore not a respectable person.

So?

Post by DKleinecke
But I don't think the satire is
aimed at the historical Jonah. It is aimed at somebody else who could
be recognized as the target - maybe Haggai.

Based on what?

Post by DKleinecke
Placing the book in time
is difficult because the Hebrew is more recent than it would have been
in the original Jonah's time.

Based on what?

Post by DKleinecke
But it cannot be too late because
Nineveh is remembered - around Haggai's time or even later - maybe as
late as Ezra. But whoever is being satirized should be a prophet or
close enough to one to pass.

Based on what?

Post by DKleinecke
As to Noah I thought everybody knew his story is an old Sumerian myth
retold in more modern form.

Considering that we are all decendents of Noah and his family, who
experienced the real event, it is not surprising that the telling of the
event could find it's way into not only Sumerian myths, but myths from
civilizations throughout the world.

DKleinecke

2009-04-13 23:45:23 UTC

Post by Eric417
Considering that we are all decendents of Noah and his family, who
experienced the real event, it is not surprising that the telling of the
event could find it's way into not only Sumerian myths, but myths from
civilizations throughout the world.

Considering the fact that Noah and the flood are pure myth it is hard
to take anything in Genesis very seriously. If you really do believe
all of current mankind is descended from Noah and his family you will
find almost everything I say knee-jerk objectionable.

The reconstruction I made of the situation behind the story of Jonah
is obviously speculative. A few historical facts behind it are: (1)
Ninevah was not particularly important in the time of the original
Jonah (2) a very few years after Jonah Ninevah was important, feared
and dangerous - fatally to the Jonah's home in the Northern Kingdom
and almost fatally in the Southern. (3) People who know Hebrew better
than I seem to unanimously agree that The Hebrew in Jonah is very late
(4) the language and the attitude toward Ninevah point to the time of
the exile or later. Ninevah is viewed quite dispassionately in Tobit,
which comes from the Persian period. (5) Reading Jonah I am impressed
that the narrative is ridiculing Jonah. (6) This kind of ridicule is
almost always political satire. (7) I could just give up at that point
but I thought I might as well guess who is was who was being
ridiculed.
I mentioned Haggai, but today I think Ezra is probably a better guess.
(8) I cannot imagine ever getting any more information about the
target was.

l***@hotmail.com

2009-04-15 00:32:00 UTC

Post by DKleinecke
Considering the fact that Noah and the flood are pure myth

Repeated assertions do not prove a point. Such is the methodology
of those wishing to spread propaganda.

"Fact" means that one can prove it. This you cannot do. Also,
because of the panoramic attestation to a world-wide flood, it
behooves you to present a thorough response to not only the
many historical accounts within a multitude of cultures, but, as
I've already noted, the geological phenomena of a world-wide
catastrophe. There is also the recent genome project which
reports that there was a genetic bottleneck less than 10,000
yrs ago. Look it up. The last report I read estimated that
human population had declined to fewer than 100 at that
point in time.

Post by DKleinecke
it is hard to take anything in Genesis very seriously.

And just what evidence do you provide to discount the
literal reading of the Genesis record?

"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with
their mocking, following after their own cravings, and saying, "Where
is the promise of His coming? for ever since the fathers fell asleep,
all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.
(uniformitarianism) For when they maintain this, it escapes their
notice (the Greek is more expressive: "willfully ignorant of the
fact" i.e. stupid on purpose) that by the word of God the heavens
existed long ago. . ." 2 Pet 3:3-5

Post by DKleinecke
If you really do believe
all of current mankind is descended from Noah and his family you will
find almost everything I say knee-jerk objectionable.

I don't view it as knee-jerk but I do view it as being deliberately
ignorant.

Post by DKleinecke
The reconstruction I made of the situation behind the story of Jonah
is obviously speculative. A few historical facts behind it are: (1)
Ninevah was not particularly important in the time of the original
Jonah

What, you maintain there were TWO Jonah's?
And again, I maintain that you are not well studied in the
archaeological records. Ninevah was as described in
Jonah. Show us some factual evidence for your position.

Post by DKleinecke
(2) a very few years after Jonah Ninevah was important, feared
and dangerous - fatally to the Jonah's home in the Northern Kingdom
and almost fatally in the Southern.

Dates and reference works please.

=93Behold, these shall come from far; and, lo, these from the north and
from the west; and these from the land of Sinim=94 (Isa 49:12).

Post by DKleinecke
(3) People who know Hebrew better
than I seem to unanimously agree that The Hebrew in Jonah is very late

"unanimously" & "people" What people? And just where do
get this idea that it is "unanimous?"

The king of Nineveh in scriptural Jonah was either Adad-Nirari III
(ca. 810-783 B.C.) or Assur-Dan III (ca. 773-756 B.C.)

Post by DKleinecke
(4) the language and the attitude toward Ninevah point to the time of
the exile or later. Ninevah is viewed quite dispassionately in Tobit,
which comes from the Persian period. (5) Reading Jonah I am impressed
that the narrative is ridiculing Jonah. (6) This kind of ridicule is
almost always political satire. (7) I could just give up at that point
but I thought I might as well guess who is was who was being
ridiculed.

Points 5-7 are not distinguishable.

Both Mt 12:41 and Lk 11:32 has Christ recounting for us that the
people of Ninevah repented at the preaching of Jonah. Now where is
there any ridicule of Jonah nor is there any clarification of the
scriptural account. Rather, Christ Himself turned time and again to
the scriptures, declaring, "It is written." Even when Satan made an
appeal to scripture Christ did not veer away from the authority and
accuracy of scripture but rather rebuked him by saying, "It is
written."

You can make all these vague an unverified assertions you want and
perhaps some of the less discerning might be swayed. But I have spent
a great deal of time and money investigating a related issue (ancient
mystery religions) the fruit from which I can unequivocally disavow
your propaganda. And that is exactly what it is. Where are you
getting your mis-information from?

Post by DKleinecke
I mentioned Haggai, but today I think Ezra is probably a better guess.
(8) I cannot imagine ever getting any more information about the
target was.

And that is why you fail.

DKleinecke

2009-04-16 00:00:14 UTC

On Apr 14, 5:32 pm, ***@hotmail.com wrote:

Many words but I have snipped most of the deadwood.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
What, you maintain there were TWO Jonah's?
And again, I maintain that you are not well studied in the
archaeological records. Ninevah was as described in
Jonah. Show us some factual evidence for your position.

I fear you are letting your visceral rejection of my statements
prevent you from understanding what I am saying. As I was using the
name Jonah there were two Jonahs. I think I made it clear enough that
Jonah the house-prophet of Jeraboam was not, in my opinion, the real
target of the satire. The second person I called Jonah for convenience
was the target of the satire. We have no real evidence for who he
really was - I just labeled him Jonah because I wanted to call him by
some name. I did have the precedent of the book itself. Only a belief
that the book is the Word of God prevents you from seeing the obvious
- the book is not about the original Jonah.

I can read the Old Testament in the original with the aid of a
dictionary. I am not a scholar of the language. I will refer you to
the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on "Jonah".

Post by l***@hotmail.com
Both Mt 12:41 and Lk 11:32 has Christ recounting for us that the
people of Ninevah repented at the preaching of Jonah.

You really have only one witness because that comes from the Q
document. This particular little pericope conflicts with the larger
mass of the gospels because in Matthew's version it says there will be
no miracles except the resurrection thereby contradicting a dozen or
more other pericopes that describe Jesus working miracles. Luke
appears to have noticed this defect in the narrative and removed the
flaw leaving the pericope very nearly meaningless. It does not seem
possible that this actually goes back to Jesus.

And, moreover, why not give Jesus credit for having a sense of humor?
He was asked a silly question so he might have given an ironic answer.

Post by l***@hotmail.com
You can make all these vague an unverified assertions you want and
perhaps some of the less discerning might be swayed. But I have spent
a great deal of time and money investigating a related issue (ancient
mystery religions) the fruit from which I can unequivocally disavow
your propaganda. And that is exactly what it is. Where are you
getting your mis-information from?

I clearly labeled what I said a speculation. A speculation is, by
definition, unverified. Where we lack knowledge we have to speculate.
We differ, of course, about whether we lack knowledge. My attitude is
approximately the same as the attitude of the Jesus Seminar. My
information base is fairly well summarized in the Anchor Bible
Dictionary and the commentaries to the Anchor Bible, but it includes
direct familiarity with some of the detailed modern research. My
speculations are, of course, my own. If I am making propaganda, it is
for nothing more than thinking for oneself.

If you have something worth saying about the ancient mystery religions
where can we see it? If it is still forthcoming where will it appear?
If it is something that I would have pay money for, I fear I will have
to forgo it.

Eric417

2009-04-15 00:31:59 UTC

Considering the fact that Noah and the flood are pure myth it is hard
to take anything in Genesis very seriously.

Based on what?

So?

Post by DKleinecke
(2) a very few years after Jonah Ninevah was important, feared
and dangerous - fatally to the Jonah's home in the Northern Kingdom
and almost fatally in the Southern.

So?

Post by DKleinecke
(3) People who know Hebrew better
than I seem to unanimously agree that The Hebrew in Jonah is very late

So?

Post by DKleinecke
(4) the language and the attitude toward Ninevah point to the time of
the exile or later. Ninevah is viewed quite dispassionately in Tobit,
which comes from the Persian period.

So?

Post by DKleinecke
(5) Reading Jonah I am impressed
that the narrative is ridiculing Jonah.

So?

Post by DKleinecke
(6) This kind of ridicule is
almost always political satire.

So?

Post by DKleinecke
(7) I could just give up at that point
but I thought I might as well guess who is was who was being
ridiculed.

So?

Post by DKleinecke
I mentioned Haggai, but today I think Ezra is probably a better guess.

Based on what?

Post by DKleinecke
(8) I cannot imagine ever getting any more information about the
target was.

So?

l***@hotmail.com

2009-04-13 23:45:23 UTC

Post by DKleinecke
The big fish story is an obvious whopper

obviously you're not widely read. There are several
maritime records which document such occurrences,
especially in whaling journals.

Post by DKleinecke
and the entire Nineveh story
a rather good joke.

again, not widely read. If you are able, go into the
Library of Congress and look up Lanyard's "Nineveh"
or "Babylon & Nineveh." I didn't find them at Chicago's
Oriental Museum 15 yrs ago, but there were plenty
of other works available to research the subject.

Post by DKleinecke
As to Noah I thought everybody knew his story is an old Sumerian myth
retold in more modern form.

Chicken or the egg? The flood story is found in just
about every ancient culture whether you look at the
native indian tellings in BC or the pan handle of
Alaska (I'm not going to take the time to look up the
specifics) or of several native tribes in SA. I have
read several Indonesian accounts.

Though each culture tells the story differently,
some literally, most metaphorically, the point still
remains that it is a world-wide tradition. Again
the point, the chicken or the egg? The Sumerian
account is merely the oldest recorded account
because most other cultures passed the tradition
down orally. But there is ample evidence that
oral tradition retains much of its original intent.

Charles Lindsey

2009-04-10 01:37:50 UTC

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Similarly, was the story of Jonah a parable? And Noah?

On what Scriptural basis would one declare them parables?

In the case of Jonah, because the style of the book is totally different
from all the other prophetic writings.

In the case of Noah, because it is plain that, as a historical event, it
did not happen exactly as described, so one must ask how and why it came
to be written. And the existence of the earlier Sumerian story is
obviously relevant there. The interest in ths story is not so much in is
historical accuracy as with the slant that was put on it - which is
essentially the principal feature of parables.

Post by Eric417
There isn't any, so the answer to both questions would be No

No, the logical answer would be "we don't know".

Eric417

2009-04-13 01:02:35 UTC

Post by Charles Lindsey

Post by **Rowland Croucher**
Similarly, was the story of Jonah a parable? And Noah?

On what Scriptural basis would one declare them parables?

In the case of Jonah, because the style of the book is totally different
from all the other prophetic writings.
In the case of Noah, because it is plain that, as a historical event, it
did not happen exactly as described, so one must ask how and why it came
to be written. And the existence of the earlier Sumerian story is
obviously relevant there. The interest in ths story is not so much in is
historical accuracy as with the slant that was put on it - which is
essentially the principal feature of parables.

Post by Eric417
There isn't any, so the answer to both questions would be No

No, the logical answer would be "we don't know".

Yes, we do. There is nothing in Scripture which says these stories
should not be taken at face value, unlike all of the other parables.

l***@hotmail.com

2009-04-13 23:45:23 UTC

Post by Charles Lindsey
In the case of Noah, because it is plain that, as a historical event, it
did not happen exactly as described, so one must ask how and why it came
to be written. And the existence of the earlier Sumerian story is
obviously relevant there. The interest in ths story is not so much in is
historical accuracy as with the slant that was put on it - which is
essentially the principal feature of parables.

There are soooooooooo many other evidences for a world wide
flood, that to deny the event simply because the written
account of it is not as detailed as modern research would like
is presuppositional.

Geological proofs alone should give an objector pause.

DKleinecke

2009-04-15 00:31:59 UTC

Post by l***@hotmail.com
There are soooooooooo many other evidences for a world wide
flood, that to deny the event simply because the written
account of it is not as detailed as modern research would like
is presuppositional.
Geological proofs alone should give an objector pause.

Laying aside all the other problems I think anyone who wishes to
uphold the Noah legend must deal with the fact that there isn't enough
water on earth to produce a worldwide deluge more than about 18 inches
deep.

The authors of Genesis seem to have recognized this fact. Their deluge
requires the use of water "from the depths". There is, of course, no
such water on earth. But the earth the authors of Genesis were
visualizing wasn't a sphere float in cosmic infinity. They though of
the earth as a flat surface - probably rectangular - with a dome over
it holding the heavenly bodies and perhaps even heaven. The "depth"
under their model of earth stretched to infinity and there was plenty
of room for water to come from and return to.

So far as I know no one defends that model of the earth these days.
But how can what was written assuming it be reconciled with observed
reality?

Antares 531

2009-04-16 00:00:14 UTC

Laying aside all the other problems I think anyone who wishes to
uphold the Noah legend must deal with the fact that there isn't enough
water on earth to produce a worldwide deluge more than about 18 inches
deep.
The authors of Genesis seem to have recognized this fact. Their deluge
requires the use of water "from the depths". There is, of course, no
such water on earth. But the earth the authors of Genesis were
visualizing wasn't a sphere float in cosmic infinity. They though of
the earth as a flat surface - probably rectangular - with a dome over
it holding the heavenly bodies and perhaps even heaven. The "depth"
under their model of earth stretched to infinity and there was plenty
of room for water to come from and return to.
So far as I know no one defends that model of the earth these days.
But how can what was written assuming it be reconciled with observed
reality?

Another idea that I've read and heard tossed around is that the earth
originally had crepe rings like Saturn has. These crepe rings are
mostly water/ice. A near miss by an asteroid or group of asteroids
could conceivably produce a Holman Transfer that would remove most of
the orbital momentum/energy from the ice particles in these crepe
rings, after which they would fall into the atmosphere and settle out
as rain. The Holman Transfer would transfer most of the original
orbital momentum/energy of the crepe ring ice particles to the passing
asteroids then let the ice particles enter the atmosphere without
reaching a high temperature (super heated steam) as they dropped
slowly into the upper atmosphere.

After the rain, the surface mass of the extra water caused some
tectonic plate shifts that deepened the oceans and allowed the
continental areas to come above the water line.

Gordon

Anita Darling

2009-04-07 00:42:19 UTC