Subject:
|
Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Feb 2002 23:02:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
964 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Markus Wolf writes:
>
> > I look forward to hearing those major contraditions you were talking about.
>
> Well, there are two major types of contradiction to consider: those between
> two or more passages of the bible (such as the number of kinds of animals on
> the ark--2 or 7 of each?); and those between the bible and reality (such as
> the fact that no global flood ever took place, and certainly not on the
> scale described in the bible).
"Global", in the Ancient World, was a far more restrictive concept; I'm sure
you'll agree that any experience lived by an entire region would probably
have been considered "global" for many years, until news from distant lands
became available.
That said, there are two possible explanations for the byblical deluge:
- The opening of the Dardanelles, flooding the Black Sea with 1000 m extra
of water height from the Mediterranean; massive killings in the coastal
villages (and 1000 m above them!), and surely a fantastic trauma for the
survivors. Nonetheless, I don't believe much in this possibility;
- The eruption in Thìra, now Santorini (Greece) around 1500 BC; that caused
a tsunami which swept all the coastal villages in the Eastern "Med", namely
in the Nile delta. Now, knowing that the jews lived in Egypt a long time
(that is, I believe, consensual), the story gains consistency.
All that is said about the rain and the ark and everything, it may be just a
synchretic story; the idea was that God might erradicate us all, using
nature, and we had to be good, is the point of the story; the rain is the
sole explanation that they could possibly immagine in those days for such a
massive amount of water; tha ark is symbolical.
This is a possibility. It can be refuted, never proved.
> The standard rebuttal for these contradictions usually takes one of the
> following forms:
> 1) Eventual revelation: "In time, we'll understand the real meaning."
And don't we all?
Assuming there is a God, He gave us the brain so that we might think on our
own - all the revelations come from the mind and our ability to think, not
any improbable apocaliptic revelation...
If there isn't a God, well, we are on our own. Thus, we have to decide how
to be good ourselves. It is frightening for most people that we might be
"alone in the dark", so religious beliefs are so popular still today.
> 2) Misinterpretation: "See, it's not a contradiction
> if you read it the right way."
Everyone using that argument should be a politician. Or a lawyer. ;-)
> 3) Empirical error: "All your mountains of data that prove the Noachian
> flood never happened are just plain wrong."
Not exactly. So far, what we think is impossible is the accuracy of a
textual description of the deluge, contained in the Bible. The deluge may
have happened, differntly from what is written. Now, the point is what
importance should be given to the details.
> 4) It's just a metaphor: "If you knew what it's really talking about,
> you'd see that there's no contradiction."
Like everything on the Bible, or the Khoran (sp?), or the Torah.
The difficulty is sometimes understanding the point... :-)
> The important part is that the inconsistencies in the bible don't really
> matter all that much, unless for some reason you're a literalist. My
> disbelief in the Christian God concept has nothing to do with the number of
> animals Noah is alleged to have taken aboard the ark, just as my disbelief
> in Santa Claus has nothing to do with the problem of fitting all those
> presents on a single sleigh.
And you have a very valid point.
My disbelief in God has to do with my belief in myself as maker of my own
good. Maybe there is a God... I don't know (and frankly, I don't really care
- if there is a God, he then will know why I don't believe in Him, right?).
As for the Bible... it is a very graphic novel. Out of which we can learn
much (especially when reading under the light of historical context).
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Stories from the New Testament
|
| (...) Well, there are two major types of contradiction to consider: those between two or more passages of the bible (such as the number of kinds of animals on the ark--2 or 7 of each?); and those between the bible and reality (such as the fact that (...) (23 years ago, 14-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
47 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
