Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,255 Year: 5,512/9,624 Month: 537/323 Week: 34/143 Day: 7/17 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Noahs Flood
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 66 of 100 (562515)
05-29-2010 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 1:06 PM


Believing the Bible
Hi Flyer,
I have a hard time understanding TEs. Honestly, I can understand where an atheist is coming from better then I can OEC or theistic evolutionists. Their reasoning makes zero sense. They pick and chose what they wish to believe out of the bible. The atheist doesn't believe it....period.
This may be a slight digression, but I just want to address this quickly.
Speaking as an atheist, I don't quite see it this way. I am perfectly willing to believe the Bible where it touches upon verifiable history. To my way of looking at things, the Bible is just one historical source among many. I do not see it as being an especially reliable source, but I doubt very much that it is completely fictional. I just need a little outside verification from independent sources before I take the Bible's word for something. There is too much in there that is fantastical or clearly fictional to rely on the Bible alone as a historical source.
Having said that, there are some Bible stories that really defy belief and stand contrary to the evidence. We know for certain that there was no worldwide flood. The evidence against it is simply too great. This is why OECs take the position they do; they know that there was no flood, but they simply cannot abide the idea that the Bible could be wrong about something. Therefore the interpretation must be changed, to better fit the evidence. I agree with you that in taking the local flood position, OECs are re-interpreting the text. The story clearly describes a worldwide flood. The tricky bit for Christians is reconciling this with the fact that no such flood ever occurred.
Personally, I don't think it really matters what the details of the flood event were supposed to have been. The flood myth exists to tell a mythic story; that of God's covenant with man. This is its primary purpose. The specifics of the event aren't the important bit and to get caught up in disputes with geologists over such minor points of belief to miss the point. For all we know, the story's authors might never have intended it to have been taken literally at all. I suspect you'll find that many theistic evolutionists tend toward this view.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:06 PM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:43 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 154 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 70 of 100 (562519)
05-29-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Flyer75
05-29-2010 1:43 PM


Re: Believing the Bible
But here's the difference between you and OEC. You probably, in fact I know you don't, accept Christ's resurrection.
Sure. I see no reason to accept accounts of supernatural events in general.
But why would someone pick and choose what is real in the Bible if one wants to follow Christ?
Perhaps because they thought that, divine or not, whether 100% historically accurate or not, his teachings were especially valuable. Personally, that doesn't quite cut the mustard for me. To be fair, you would be better served by an answer from a TE.
Percy, who I assume is not a follower of the Christian religion, hit the nail on the head really.
Yeah, he has a knack for that.
The point is, a TE claims Scripture, but then doesn't believe what's in it.
In my experience, TEs and other moderate Christians cite scripture in a slightly different way to creationists, literalists and so on. With moderate Christians, scripture is more likely to be discussed in terms of the author's intent or it's allegorical content. With creationists, there seems to be a more... proscriptive view of scripture. Creationist members here at EvC typically show a great deal more confidence in their scriptural interpretations than TEs.
Basically, I think that moderate Christians are less constrained by the idea that the Bible's word is law. I think this can only be a good thing.
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Flyer75, posted 05-29-2010 1:43 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024