Why read the Bible literally: take two

Are you saying that there weren't 200 Flood stories that had that kind of agreement??...all your post proved was there were more than 200 stories, that does not make my original point false.You say, "The reason I failed to mention it is that it is utterly false. (And also off-topic to this thread.)"I know otherwise, and can prove it but can't argue about it here, because, as you said, it is off topic.

How disgusting - man walking on water - fine, man returning from the dead - fine, man able to raise the dead - fine.Another culture has a 100ft bear but some reason this is a matter of fun.

quote:

---

Are you saying that there weren't 200 Flood stories that had that kind of agreement??...all your post proved was there were more than 200 stories

---

Are you saying that 200 flood stories were purposely cherry-picked in order to provide skewed statistics?-

quote:

---

I know otherwise, and can prove it but can't argue about it here, because, as you said, it is off topic.

---

Maybe someone should open a new thread to discuss this.

quote:

---

I think one of the problems with this story is, it stands alone, without any real historical context, making it hard to take seriously (giant bear aside lol) unlike the Biblical stories we have been talking about here.

---

I need you to define what you mean by historical context and also describe the historical context you take into account for the story of Noah and the Flood which determines that the story is to be taken as written. (Only Noah and the Flood)

quote:

---

If I read correctly, this story suggests a bear of almost a 1000 feet high while standing...which would be fine, except, I haven't heard of any fossilised bears that big lol!

---

Yet!You can abide a 950 year old man, but not a Grizzly a thousand feet tall?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Like I said, the author of the story obviously didn't take it that seriously...why should we?? I'm amazed you can't tell the difference. The fact is, all the points you mentioned were never understood by the Biblical writers as normal, everyday events...they viewed these things as acts of God. Unlike the story about the massive bear, which accepted it's existence as a matter of normal, everyday fact. That is one big difference between most myths and the Bible, one that you obviously have missed.

I understand your reluctance to accept a 950 year old man, assuming as you do the doctrine of uniformitarianism which assumes that the way things are now re. human age, was the way things were back in the day. Of course, this is not a Biblical assumption, but an evolutionary one. The Bible does not pretend that everything before Adam & Eve's sin and before the Flood was the same as it is now. Sin had a negative effect on the physical world, the Flood would have had a big impact on the climate.
Bottom line is, if you don't accept those two Biblical presuppositions, you are going to have a hard time with lots of other stuff in the Bible too. But they aren't a problem for me. All consistent with the whole story. That's one of the things that made me realise you really can't pick and choose where the Bible is concerned. It makes sense as a whole but as soon as you start taking bits out you don't like, the whole thing no longer makes sense.
See my last post re. the bear.

Actually I wonder if this Flood story stuff would be better discussed under 'Alternative Creations', (that thread already exists)? Or under a Flood thread? Any ideas, folks?

You derailed again and didn't address the main part of Message 244.

quote:

---

Bottom line is, if you don't accept those two Biblical presuppositions,

---

Which I assume is: In Message 223 you stated: I want you to help me understand your criteria for determining that the story of Noah and the flood is to be read literally as an event that happened as written. Help me to see that you use that same criteria in reading other writings, such as the one I provided, as you do the stories in the Bible.

quote:

---

Bottom line is, if you don't accept those two Biblical presuppositions, you are going to have a hard time with lots of other stuff in the Bible too.

---

This statement sounds as though you use a different set of criteria for other writings than you do the Bible.If I take your presupposition that everything was different before the flood, then the 1000 foot bear is a possibility since the Grizzly Bear Lodge (Devil's Tower) is over 5000 years old.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

Like I said, the author of the story obviously didn't take it that seriously...why should we?? I'm amazed you can't tell the difference.

---

Since the author did not create this story, why does his opinion count?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Still waiting for an answer to Message 246.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Message 246 was my message! No one answered my message 247.

What is the mechanism by which sin affects the physical world? No change to climate is going to cause you to live 950 years.

Nothing wrong with discussing "flood stuff" right here, is there?Since the topic is "Why read the Bible literally?", how about telling us why you think a literal flood has more meaning than a figurative flood.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Re. hospitals, in the pre-Christian Roman Empire, hospitals existed only for soldiers, gladiators, and slaves. Manual labourers and other poor indidviduals had no place of refuge. Men feared death and took little interest in the sick, but often drove them out of the house, and left them to their fate. The Romans most certainly did not elevate the common man lol.
Re. universities, in Greek times, these were only for the elite, the phenomenon of education for the masses has it's roots in Christianity.
Re. modern science, I found your remark rather amusing. Many ecologists, who are not Christians by their own admission, blame the ills of humankind on science, many say, in fact, that it is because of Christianity that we have science and that Christianity is to blame for the whole thing!!! Sounds to me like you need to expand your reading on that front!!
Re. Columbus, I'm sorry that you don't find your country a 'positive thing' in the world, but, you folks do have your faults (as we all do), I shudder to think what the world would be like without the US.
Re. the Crusades and the Inquisition, show me where the NT writers taught that the Holy Land had to be taken by force if lost to other peoples??? Show me where the NT writers suggested that anyone who disagreed with them should be stoned or burned...you see, in the Middle Ages, most people were Biblically illiterate, most did not have the Scriptures in their own languages, thanks to the RCC. That was how those events happened, not because The NT taught them, but because a corrupt church taught them to an illiterate people that didn't know better.
Re. slavery and Columbus, he is a good example of one who went with a cultural norm of the day without questioning it, though of course, he questioned many others in order to stumble across America. I guess nobody's perfect, we are all susceptible to cultural blindness from time to time. I have no doubt a century or two down the road, our descendants will look back at us and wonder why we accepted some things today, as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

An Admin had posted a note on mine saying the Flood was being discussed elsewhere, told me to drop it. I thought I was in this thread at the time but I may be mistaken.