Why read the Bible literally: take two

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.

I think AdminJar's objection in Message 232 was to your trying to bring in evidence that a flood could happen, or did happen. That is the correct interpretation. AdminJarMy question is on topic: why do you think a literal reading of the flood story is more meaningful than a figurative reading? In other words, what do you think the meaning of the story is and why do you think it would mean less if it was fiction?This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-28-2005 10:51 PM

---

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

I'm not interested in why you think the text indicates a global flood. Been there. Done that.What I'm asking you to do is to suppose for the moment that the flood story was just a story - pure fiction, not a word of history in it. How would that change the message? Why would the message be any different?That's why I asked the simple question: what do you think the meaning of the flood story is? Too often, people get hung up on whether or not the ark is on top of a certain mountain, and whether or not the flood was global, and they lose track of what the story is really about.So, what do you think the story is about?

---

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

Hi, Arach.I didn't mean to say I'm not interested at all in how the text should be read. I agree with your take on it, that the word eretz refers to a local area (but the writers probably thought the flood was "global" - if they had such a concept at all).My point was that the topic is (or should be, in my opinion) about why a literal reading of the Bible is preferred by some. You are talking about how we can tell what is literal and what is not. That has been done to death in these forums, and no consensus has been reached yet.I just wish we could discuss why we can't learn as much from fiction as from history.

---

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

That's about what I expected Steve8 to say.As arachnophilia has tried to point out, that's not the whole answer. But, since jar is on his way to put the horses in the barn, I'll cut to the chase:The meaning if the flood story is that if we obey God, God will protect us. Sin and eschatology are side issues. See, it isn't sin that brings death. Life brings death. Noah and his family all died too eventually. Their deaths don't negate the value of the story.And whether or not the story is literally true has nothing to do with whether or not God is truthful.As I've been trying to say, fiction has as much value as history - if not more value. Do you think Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath is historically accurate? Do you think it contains "truth"? Do you think it has value?

---

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

So we should obey God because of threats?That's not what Noah did. God didn't tell Noah, "Obey me or I'll drown you." Presumably, Noah obeyed God because it was the right thing to do.God didn't threaten the ones who were drowned either. There was no "threat", so how does a literal fulfilment of a non-existent threat improve the story?

---

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

As I said, Noah was never threatened. He did what was right because it was right.Do you want your children to do what's right because of "terrible consequences" - i.e punishment? Or do you want them to do what's right because they understand the consequences?For example, you teach your children not to hit each other. Do you want them to not do it because they're afraid of you hitting them harder? Or do you want them to not do it because they understand that it hurts the other?All in all, a literal understanding of the flood story seems primitive - and less instructive than a broader understanding.

---

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

Sure you can.My mother used to tell me outlandish stories about talking bears who ate porridge and slept in beds and sat in chairs. She also taught me not to hit my brothers because it made them cry. She never once hit me or even threatened to hit me to "illustrate" the point.Once again: we learn more from a good example than from a bad one. The literal "vengeful God" story is inferior.

---

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

Take a look at my avatar. Do I look like a person who is motivated by fear, even a tiny bit?Seriously, though, fear is not even close to being the "greatest motivator". I learned to be kind to other people from my mother's good example, and from empathy toward their feelings - not from fear.Fear is more likely to motivate us to do bad things.

---

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

For one thing - as Chiroptera said - it never happened (and if you think it did happen, feel free to take your evidence over to the appropriate thread).The point that I have been trying to make is that the story means more - not less - if it is taken as a lesson rather than as a mere news story. Yesterday's news is only good for lining birdcages.If taken literally, it seems to be telling us that God is an evil bastard who will kill us at the drop of a hat if we step out of line. If taken figuratively, it tells us to be good and we'll be saved. Hmm... do unto others as you would have others do unto you.The "evil God" concept that you are pushing just makes me want to fight back.

---

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

Used to be - not so much any more.No offense, but it was people like you with the "vengeful God" bit that made me decide that's not the side I'm on."If God be for you, who can be against you?" If God was who you say He is, I'd be against Him. I don't "deny" the flood. I can be pretty sure, using my eyes and my brain, that it never happened. Therefore, if the story has any value at all, it can not be as history. Depends on what you mean by "following" Jesus.If you mean believing that he was the son of God, not so much. If you mean doing what he told us to do - love thy neighbour as thyself, etc. - then that isn't exactly rocket science, is it? Every religion teaches that.

---

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