The flood.

[Physicist]

The Flood Year was Noahs 600th year about 2347BC
Don't listen to the naysayers and false science. It happened.
God Bless, Ron

The Universal Flood only happened as a mythological tale. Such tales were common in ancient times and enrich our understanding of earlier civilizations. However, there was no real Hercules, Noah, or Beowolf. These are just tall tales told around the campfire, like more recent stories of Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan. IMO it is unwise to live in a fantasy world of demons, dragons, and mythical heroes. The real world is much more interesting.

Physicist, I know you cannot respond to every Christian on this board, but I want you to notice who you choose to responded to. You chose to respond to someone that believes the flood happened in 2347BC. Only an extremely small percentage of Christians believe that. Is this not "picking the low hanging fruit," so to speak? It might make you look good in making fun of the really bad posts, but if you really want to make Christians think, you will have to respond to the better arguments. Of course that will take more work. I am suggesting you pursue you conversation with Izzy and ignore the really bad posts. Truth is not found in "picking the low hanging fruit" but in taking on the best arguments.

Pardon me for sometimes sounding too dismissive. This is not the only forum where I have to explain why the Flood tale is mythological and I sometimes commit the mistake I used to do occasionally when teaching the same science course. I would give short answers in the second lecture because I had already patiently explained the solution in the first lecture and failed to remember that I had a different audience who had not heard the first explanation.

Izzy is, in my opinion, committing the logical flaw of inventing 'just so' explanations to try to avoid accepting the (by far) most probable answer that the story is fiction. He wishes to assume that there was some kind of canopy that filtered out light of certain frequencies so that rainbows were rare. However, the frequencies that cause rainbows are the visible spectrum so Noah would have been working in the dark unless he could see in the infrared or ultraviolet.

Science puts quite severe restrictions on 'just so' explanations. For example, the consequences of the hypothetical canopy of high concentrations of water vapor could be a giant greenhouse affect making today's concerns about climate change seem trivial.

 

[izzy]

Izzy is, in my opinion, committing the logical flaw of inventing 'just so' explanations to try to avoid accepting the (by far) most probable answer that the story is fiction. He wishes to assume that there was some kind of canopy that filtered out light of certain frequencies so that rainbows were rare. However, the frequencies that cause rainbows are the visible spectrum so Noah would have been working in the dark unless he could see in the infrared or ultraviolet.

Science puts quite severe restrictions on 'just so' explanations. For example, the consequences of the hypothetical canopy of high concentrations of water vapor could be a giant greenhouse affect making today's concerns about climate change seem trivial.

Actually, you do have some good points there, Physicist. One of the major problems with the canopy theory is that any water canopy over three feet thick or so would cause a runaway greenhouse effect and make the planet far too hot. A thin canopy within the limits of human climate tolerance would only contribute a few inches of water globally in rain if it came down, so it does not really explain a flood. I disagree that a canopy would cause total darkness, however. A canopy might filter out some of the frequencies, especially towards the blue end of the spectrum, but it is not eliminating all the waves, meaning there would still be light coming through. You can still see light to a certain distance underwater, correct?

As for the flood being a myth, one of the essentials of Christianity is that God can directly intervene in nature to introduce a cause that was not present before. Read C.S Lewis Miracles for a great philosophical dissertation on this. The death and resurrection of Christ and his power over disease, demons, and nature can not be mythologized or Christianity is dead. As Paul says, "For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men (1 Corinthians 15:16-19, NIV). I do believe that the miracles recorded in the Bible literally took place and unless the historical and grammatical context of the passage of Scripture indicates otherwise, I interpret it as literally occurring. For instance, Revelation and the prophets should not be taken literally as in an actual beast with the number 666 rising out of the sea, etc. because it is highly symbolic. The Gospels, on the other hand were written as historical documents detailing the life of Christ and every supernatural event recorded in them, including the virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurrection is meant to be taken literally.

 

[Drew]

This is the point when if i was talking to you guys in real life i would laugh and walk away. All this junk about a non literal flood is baloney. Next thing you know people will be saying that Jesus never literally died for our sins. .

It is a little ironic that you use the "screwloose" symbol to suggest that we who believe the flood is likely a myth are engaging in bad thinking.

You are, I suggest, not aware of the Jewish mindset of the time and how they had a clear record of using myth and "story" to transmit important truths. You seem to think that the Bible was written in the post-enlightenment mindset with its "science-y" bent.

The Bible was not written by scientists whose primary concern is communicating literal truth. I can give many examples of metaphor in the Bible - for example, how the desctruction of Babylon is described in language that suggests the whole world is coming to an end.

Does this mean its all "metaphor"? Of course not.

 

[John]

Sorry but my God made this world in 6 days, He destroyed it via flood, he died for our sins and he is coming again! :amen

 

[Drew]

Sorry but my God made this world in 6 days, He destroyed it via flood, he died for our sins and he is coming again! :amen

Are you at all open to the possibility that you have been looking at the Bible with a post-enlightenment mindset, deeply at odds with an entirely different mindset of an ancient culture where "truth-telling" can employ literary devivces such as metaphor and allegory?

 

[John]

Sorry but my God made this world in 6 days, He destroyed it via flood, he died for our sins and he is coming again! :amen

Are you at all open to the possibility that you have been looking at the Bible with a post-enlightenment mindset, deeply at odds with an entirely different mindset of an ancient culture where "truth-telling" can employ literary devivces such as metaphor and allegory?

Nope not at all.

II Peter 3:3-6.

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
(did you know there are people who scoff at the Bible? ;) )

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (uniformatarianism)

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (willingly ignorant aka: dumb on purpose. Don't get mad at me it is what the Bible says )

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

 

[John]

Argumentative and question-begging. As we often see here in this forum, this response is essentially an evasion of an entirely legitimate challenge, seasoned with the usual rhetoric, implying that those who disagree with you are deceived and morally suspect.

I am not going to drag this out any further with you Drew. II Peter 3:3-6. is sound scripture. I agree with it and will abide by it and no amount of scoffing at the literalness of Genesis will cause me to throw it to the dogs.

 

[mondar]

Izzy is, in my opinion, committing the logical flaw of inventing 'just so' explanations to try to avoid accepting the (by far) most probable answer that the story is fiction. He wishes to assume that there was some kind of canopy that filtered out light of certain frequencies so that rainbows were rare. However, the frequencies that cause rainbows are the visible spectrum so Noah would have been working in the dark unless he could see in the infrared or ultraviolet.

Science puts quite severe restrictions on 'just so' explanations. For example, the consequences of the hypothetical canopy of high concentrations of water vapor could be a giant greenhouse affect making today's concerns about climate change seem trivial.

I will read what you and Izzy have to say. Although there might not be more to come, I dont know.

I do want to note that you did not respond to IZZY on the issues concerning the "rainbow" and "transubstantiation."

 

[Physicist]

Izzy is, in my opinion, committing the logical flaw of inventing 'just so' explanations to try to avoid accepting the (by far) most probable answer that the story is fiction. He wishes to assume that there was some kind of canopy that filtered out light of certain frequencies so that rainbows were rare. However, the frequencies that cause rainbows are the visible spectrum so Noah would have been working in the dark unless he could see in the infrared or ultraviolet.

Science puts quite severe restrictions on 'just so' explanations. For example, the consequences of the hypothetical canopy of high concentrations of water vapor could be a giant greenhouse affect making today's concerns about climate change seem trivial.

Actually, you do have some good points there, Physicist. One of the major problems with the canopy theory is that any water canopy over three feet thick or so would cause a runaway greenhouse effect and make the planet far too hot. A thin canopy within the limits of human climate tolerance would only contribute a few inches of water globally in rain if it came down, so it does not really explain a flood. I disagree that a canopy would cause total darkness, however. A canopy might filter out some of the frequencies, especially towards the blue end of the spectrum, but it is not eliminating all the waves, meaning there would still be light coming through. You can still see light to a certain distance underwater, correct?

Pardon me if I misunderstood your earlier statement. I thought you claimed that the reason rainbows had rarely occurred prior to the Flood was because of the canopy. Since rainbows are a phenomenon of the visible light spectrum, this would imply absorption of visible light by the canopy.

Whether you assume complete or near darkness on the planet, the answer is inconsistent with existing plant life. Many plants require direct sunlight (in the visible spectrum) to survive, something every gardener knows.

As for the flood being a myth, one of the essentials of Christianity is that God can directly intervene in nature to introduce a cause that was not present before. Read C.S Lewis Miracles for a great philosophical dissertation on this. The death and resurrection of Christ and his power over disease, demons, and nature can not be mythologized or Christianity is dead. As Paul says, "For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men (1 Corinthians 15:16-19, NIV). I do believe that the miracles recorded in the Bible literally took place and unless the historical and grammatical context of the passage of Scripture indicates otherwise, I interpret it as literally occurring.

Why do you believe this? I would contend that you do so because of geography. Had you been born in Riyadh, I think it is highly likely that you would accept Allah as God and Mohammed as his prophet. One of the virtues of scientific truths is that they are not geographically specific.

For instance, Revelation and the prophets should not be taken literally as in an actual beast with the number 666 rising out of the sea, etc. because it is highly symbolic. The Gospels, on the other hand were written as historical documents detailing the life of Christ and every supernatural event recorded in them, including the virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurrection is meant to be taken literally.

Did you ever ask yourself HOW the author of Matthew would verify that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus? Illicit sex was punished severely, which would give a pregnant unmarried woman strong motive to lie.

 

[izzy]

[quote:3v8l2azm][quote:3v8l2azm]Izzy is, in my opinion, committing the logical flaw of inventing 'just so' explanations to try to avoid accepting the (by far) most probable answer that the story is fiction. He wishes to assume that there was some kind of canopy that filtered out light of certain frequencies so that rainbows were rare. However, the frequencies that cause rainbows are the visible spectrum so Noah would have been working in the dark unless he could see in the infrared or ultraviolet.

Science puts quite severe restrictions on 'just so' explanations. For example, the consequences of the hypothetical canopy of high concentrations of water vapor could be a giant greenhouse affect making today's concerns about climate change seem trivial.

Actually, you do have some good points there, Physicist. One of the major problems with the canopy theory is that any water canopy over three feet thick or so would cause a runaway greenhouse effect and make the planet far too hot. A thin canopy within the limits of human climate tolerance would only contribute a few inches of water globally in rain if it came down, so it does not really explain a flood. I disagree that a canopy would cause total darkness, however. A canopy might filter out some of the frequencies, especially towards the blue end of the spectrum, but it is not eliminating all the waves, meaning there would still be light coming through. You can still see light to a certain distance underwater, correct? [/quote:3v8l2azm]

Pardon me if I misunderstood your earlier statement. I thought you claimed that the reason rainbows had rarely occurred prior to the Flood was because of the canopy. Since rainbows are a phenomenon of the visible light spectrum, this would imply absorption of visible light by the canopy.

Whether you assume complete or near darkness on the planet, the answer is inconsistent with existing plant life. Many plants require direct sunlight (in the visible spectrum) to survive, something every gardener knows.
[/quote:3v8l2azm]

Actually, Physicist, plants absorb different frequencies within the visible light spectrum depending on what they are composed of. For instance, underwater plants absorb frequencies in the blue-green frequency (about 500 nm wavelength) because those are the wavelengths least absorbed by water. For a chart on the frequencies that water absorbs, check out this link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Water_absorption_spectrum.png. Yes, it is from wikipedia, but it was the nicest chart I could find. A water canopy would block out the longer wavelengths mostly (the red end of the spectrum) and some of the shorter wavelengths (the blue end). I initially said a water canopy would filter out the blue end of the spectrum, but I was not correct there. Water absorbs mostly red visible light, meaning that a water canopy over the earth would have had a pinkish tinge. This does not mean that plant life would not have flourished.

I also thought I made it clear that a water canopy is only a theory and it could very well be flawed. In fact, I already pointed out a big problem with it. I just gave this theory to you as something to consider. We tend to assume that every system on the earth that supports life has remained relatively constant in its operations since the beginning, but this might not be the case (I am not saying that physical constants like the gravitational constant or laws like thermodynamics changed). Of course, this all stemmed from a discussion on whether rainbows existed before the flood, but we cannot decidedly read this into the text in Genesis.

On the other hand, if you dismiss the entire Bible as mythological, there is not much point to this discussion. Do you attend the United Church, by any chance? I just say this because I know that that church dismisses all supernatural events in the Bible as mythological. Even if I pointed out that Jesus referred to Noah as a historical figure and the flood as an actual event (Luke 17:26-27), you would probably reply that Christ was merely going along with a culture that regarded it as factual. Apparently, he was not as enlightened as we are now.

I could go on and on. The virgin birth was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 made hundreds of years earlier and was one of the signs of the Messiah or Christ. And no, that prophecy was not rewritten by Christians after the fact, as the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the 1940's and dated to 100 B.C indicate. The same goes for a multitude of other prophecies that Christ fulfilled in his life.

You said scientific truth is not bound by geography. I would say that absolute Truth is not bound by geography. The pursuit of scientific knowledge was started by people in Christian Europe who believed in a God of order who had created a world that could be studied and understood. They believed that God was the source of all Truth and that he had revealed himself in Scripture.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
— Galileo Galilei

 

[Physicist]

Actually, Physicist, plants absorb different frequencies within the visible light spectrum depending on what they are composed of. For instance, underwater plants absorb frequencies in the blue-green frequency (about 500 nm wavelength) because those are the wavelengths least absorbed by water. For a chart on the frequencies that water absorbs, check out this link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Water_absorption_spectrum.png. Yes, it is from wikipedia, but it was the nicest chart I could find. A water canopy would block out the longer wavelengths mostly (the red end of the spectrum) and some of the shorter wavelengths (the blue end). I initially said a water canopy would filter out the blue end of the spectrum, but I was not correct there. Water absorbs mostly red visible light, meaning that a water canopy over the earth would have had a pinkish tinge. This does not mean that plant life would not have flourished.

Land plants have evolved an energy absorption spectrum that encompasses the visible range. This makes sense because that is the peak energy band in solar radiation and is little absorbed by the atmosphere on a clear day. Rainbows are caused by diffraction of visible light by water droplets. To see how light would look under a water canopy, look up from the bottom of the swimming pool. However, you wished to use the the canopy to reduce rainbows. This requires thick , dark clouds that can either absorb or scattter the light. Your Petunias would not do well.

I also thought I made it clear that a water canopy is only a theory and it could very well be flawed. In fact, I already pointed out a big problem with it. I just gave this theory to you as something to consider. We tend to assume that every system on the earth that supports life has remained relatively constant in its operations since the beginning, but this might not be the case (I am not saying that physical constants like the gravitational constant or laws like thermodynamics changed). Of course, this all stemmed from a discussion on whether rainbows existed before the flood, but we cannot decidedly read this into the text in Genesis.

Without special pleading, Genesis does indeed say that YHWH gave humanity the rainbow as a sign of his covenant. My brief discussion of the consequences of the canopy was to illustrate the difficulties in trying to gin up physical phenomena to match the tales in Genesis. Better off to simply classify the whole thing as a miracle to be taken on faith alone. After all, there is no actual evidence to indicate a Universal flood a few thousand years ago so why try to fit a scientific explanation to it?

On the other hand, if you dismiss the entire Bible as mythological, there is not much point to this discussion. Do you attend the United Church, by any chance? I just say this because I know that that church dismisses all supernatural events in the Bible as mythological. Even if I pointed out that Jesus referred to Noah as a historical figure and the flood as an actual event (Luke 17:26-27), you would probably reply that Christ was merely going along with a culture that regarded it as factual. Apparently, he was not as enlightened as we are now.

No, I am not a member of the United Church. My religious training was Catholic but it should be obvious that I and the Pope would not agree on many points.

I do regard much of the Bible as legendary and it does not bother me that a gospel author quotes Jesus as describing the Flood as factual. The gospels were written decades after the events and contain obvious urban legend, unless you really think that zombie saints actually wandered through Jerusalem and only Matthew thought to record the event. Who knows what Jesus truly said and did? Certainly, the gospel authors had no first-hand knowledge.

I could go on and on. The virgin birth was the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 made hundreds of years earlier and was one of the signs of the Messiah or Christ. And no, that prophecy was not rewritten by Christians after the fact, as the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the 1940's and dated to 100 B.C indicate. The same goes for a multitude of other prophecies that Christ fulfilled in his life.

The nativity tales are classic examples of myth. The Matthew story uses the technique of midrash, a common practice of Hebrew sects, as the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrates. By this technique, the writer takes language out of the Hebrew scripture and re-interprets it to mean something quite different, often a prophecy. I assume you know that the original Isaiah text should be translated as a young woman (almah in Hebrew) is with child. The Isaiah prophecy said that before the child was old enough to know right from wrong, the King would be relieved of his enemies. The author of Matthew, using a Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew, midrashed the text to apply to Jesus. Quite a stretch, when you closely examine it. As I have asked elsewhere, how would the gospel author, writing long after the death of Mary, verify that she was a virgin? However, God-virgin affairs were common in stories of that age.

You said scientific truth is not bound by geography. I would say that absolute Truth is not bound by geography. The pursuit of scientific knowledge was started by people in Christian Europe who believed in a God of order who had created a world that could be studied and understood. They believed that God was the source of all Truth and that he had revealed himself in Scripture.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
— Galileo Galilei

[/quote]

The pursuit of scientific knowledge was begun by Greeks, Chinese, Babylonians and some New World cultures, none of whom were Christians. Christianity brought the Dark Ages to Europe and the Church actively opposed the Enlightenment. Lets not re-write history here.

 

[Orion]

I do regard much of the Bible as legendary and it does not bother me that a gospel author quotes Jesus as describing the Flood as factual. The gospels were written decades after the events and contain obvious urban legend, unless you really think that zombie saints actually wandered through Jerusalem and only Matthew thought to record the event. Who knows what Jesus truly said and did? Certainly, the gospel authors had no first-hand knowledge.

This account, also, was not recorded in any other contemporary narrative of the day, . . . which seems highly unlikely.

Good post, Physicist. It is perfectly fine to see these "fantastical stories" as figurative/metaphoracal.

 

[mondar]

I think IZZY is doing a fine job of explaining things, but I want to jump in here and express my opinion here. I am certainly no scientist. It is just simply not my area of understanding. I am interested in the bible. In my opinion, Physicist, you have not spent much time understanding the text of Matthew and Isaiah.

The nativity tales are classic examples of myth. The Matthew story uses the technique of midrash, a common practice of Hebrew sects, as the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrates. By this technique, the writer takes language out of the Hebrew scripture and re-interprets it to mean something quite different, often a prophecy.

I recognize that Matthew is using the term "fulfilled" in a different sense that Paul uses the term. That much is obvious, but to take this and run with it and suggest that the author of Matthew (or even other parts of the NT) was writing in the literary genre of myth seems to be a stretch.

I assume you know that the original Isaiah text should be translated as a young woman (almah in Hebrew) is with child.

That is within the range of meaning of the hebrew term. However, the semantic range of the word is broader then just "young woman" and virginity can be understood as within the implicit meaning of the word.

Most likely when Isaiah spoke to words of Isaiah 6, he was referring to his soon to be consumated marriage with a virgin Israelites. He was speaking of soon to be "Mrs Isaiah." The sign to Ahaz was that this historical virgin would marry Isaiah and would conceive and bear a son to be named Immanuel (or Mahershallelhashbaz). The event of the birth is recorded in Isaiah 7.

When Isaiah used the term to Ahaz, I suspect they both implicitly assumed that the word included the concept that the future Mrs. Isaiah was a virgin.

The Isaiah prophecy said that before the child was old enough to know right from wrong, the King would be relieved of his enemies. The author of Matthew, using a Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew, midrashed the text to apply to Jesus. Quite a stretch, when you closely examine it.

Seems a pretty wide leap to assume that the term is "mistranslated" and that Matthew "midrashed the text." Maybe if you had more closely examined the text of Isaiah, you would see the literary genre of poetry. There is poetic license with Poetry. If Matthew reads the poetry of Isaiah and sees a deeper meaning in the wider context (Isa 6-11), that does not make Matthew literary genre to be either myth or midrash. Certainly Matthew was not focused upon the historical prophecy fulfilled in Mahershallelhashbaz that I spoke of above. Matthew is looking at Isaiah 6 and the name of his son Immanuel in relation to Isaiah 9 and 11. The name of the son of Isaiah, Immanuel, should be seen as relating to the later prophecies in Isaiah in that context, and Matthew was viewing the poetry of Isaiah more wholisticly, but then merely quoted the single passage from Isaiah 6:14 and did not quote the entire 5 chapters from Isaiah. The later Immanuel was to be the everlasting father, one who would bring peace so that the lion and the calf would eat straw together.

I also doubt that Matthew wrote this in isolation from the kurgma of the primitive Church.

As I have asked elsewhere, how would the gospel author, writing long after the death of Mary, verify that she was a virgin? However, God-virgin affairs were common in stories of that age.

I seem to remember how when Rylands papyrus was discovered, the common dating of the gospel of John was quite late. Suddenly a fragment of John appeared which caused much of the scholarly world move the date of the Gospel of John back a hundred years. I don't see why a first century date for Matthew is so impossible.

I am not much of a scientist. I will leave those discussions to others. I would love to read more on the scientific aspects of the possibility of the flood. However, I don't see much evidence for your quick and easy dismissal of the text as "myth," or "midrash."

 

[izzy]

I do regard much of the Bible as legendary and it does not bother me that a gospel author quotes Jesus as describing the Flood as factual. The gospels were written decades after the events and contain obvious urban legend, unless you really think that zombie saints actually wandered through Jerusalem and only Matthew thought to record the event. Who knows what Jesus truly said and did? Certainly, the gospel authors had no first-hand knowledge.

Physicist, I want to thank you for this interesting discussion and for remaining courteous, even though we are clearly opposite in our views. When it comes to creation and the flood, there are many theories that have been proposed by young and old earth creationists, but, like evolution, they will always remain theories because there is evidence for and against each of them. We could spend a long time debating the pros and cons of each theory, but I think that in light of your comments about the Bible being mostly legendary, it would be better to discuss the authenticity and reliability of the Bible as a whole. For instance, if the Gospels are reliable, then it would follow that Jesus referring to the flood as a historical fact would hold more water (lol, get it?). :D

The pursuit of scientific knowledge was begun by Greeks, Chinese, Babylonians and some New World cultures, none of whom were Christians. Christianity brought the Dark Ages to Europe and the Church actively opposed the Enlightenment. Lets not re-write history here.

As for scientific history, it is true that some science was practiced by Babylonians, Egyptians, and the Greeks long before Christ. The development of the scientific method, however, is another story. Aristotle used logic and reason to argue from observable particulars and form conclusions, but there was hardly any experimentation. Math was used solely for geometry and engineering applications. After the founding of Islam, the Muslims had an era of amazing scholarship in which some facts about the nature of light were discovered through experimentation and the testing of hypothesizes. I would argue that this was because the Muslims also believed in a divine being of order and reason, instead of pagan superstitions. This era of scholarship, however, ended around the eleventh century when fundamentalist caliphs cracked down on it and when wars like the Crusades and the invasion of Ghengis Khan caused chaos.
Meanwhile, Europe was in the midst of its Dark Ages in which the Catholic church (which should not be mistaken for the real Church that is made up of believers), dictated that it alone knew the truth. The Bible was in Latin and only available to those in the monasteries and church organizations who were allowed to study it. Anyone dissenting with the Catholic view was usually burned at the stake as a heretic, whether they were a dabbler in science, a madman, or a Christian. Finally, people started to rebel. The Reformation and the beginning of modern science all came around the same time. Galileo, Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Newton are credited with being the founders of the modern scientific method, and they all professed a belief in God. I think this demonstrates that there is no inherent contradiction between faith and belief in God and the proper study of science.

mondar wrote a good reply on the matter of Isaiah 7:14. Often, in the case of prophecy, there is an initial fulfillment and then, a secondary, larger fulfillment. For instance, Isaiah prophesied the fall of Babylon (Isaiah 21:9), but this is also echoed in Revelation where Babylon is no longer merely a city, but the “mother of all the abominations of the earth†and is at that time fallen forever (Revelation 18:2).

Scholars generally agree that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written between 58 - 65 A.D when the original apostles and witnesses were still alive. Internal evidence and historical evidence would indicate this. There are also more fragments of manuscripts from the New Testament than any other literary work from that era. The Gospel of John is estimated to have been written between 90 - 100 A.D because it indicates familiarity with the other Gospels. John lived longest out of all the apostles.

So, I realize that this is going way beyond the initial topic of the flood. Maybe a new thread should be started on historical criticism of the Bible.

 

[Physicist]

I think IZZY is doing a fine job of explaining things, but I want to jump in here and express my opinion here. I am certainly no scientist. It is just simply not my area of understanding. I am interested in the bible. In my opinion, Physicist, you have not spent much time understanding the text of Matthew and Isaiah.

The nativity tales are classic examples of myth. The Matthew story uses the technique of midrash, a common practice of Hebrew sects, as the Dead Sea Scrolls illustrates. By this technique, the writer takes language out of the Hebrew scripture and re-interprets it to mean something quite different, often a prophecy.

I recognize that Matthew is using the term "fulfilled" in a different sense that Paul uses the term. That much is obvious, but to take this and run with it and suggest that the author of Matthew (or even other parts of the NT) was writing in the literary genre of myth seems to be a stretch.

I assume you know that the original Isaiah text should be translated as a young woman (almah in Hebrew) is with child.

That is within the range of meaning of the hebrew term. However, the semantic range of the word is broader then just "young woman" and virginity can be understood as within the implicit meaning of the word.

Most likely when Isaiah spoke to words of Isaiah 6, he was referring to his soon to be consumated marriage with a virgin Israelites. He was speaking of soon to be "Mrs Isaiah." The sign to Ahaz was that this historical virgin would marry Isaiah and would conceive and bear a son to be named Immanuel (or Mahershallelhashbaz). The event of the birth is recorded in Isaiah 7.

When Isaiah used the term to Ahaz, I suspect they both implicitly assumed that the word included the concept that the future Mrs. Isaiah was a virgin.

The Isaiah prophecy said that before the child was old enough to know right from wrong, the King would be relieved of his enemies. The author of Matthew, using a Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew, midrashed the text to apply to Jesus. Quite a stretch, when you closely examine it.

Seems a pretty wide leap to assume that the term is "mistranslated" and that Matthew "midrashed the text." Maybe if you had more closely examined the text of Isaiah, you would see the literary genre of poetry. There is poetic license with Poetry. If Matthew reads the poetry of Isaiah and sees a deeper meaning in the wider context (Isa 6-11), that does not make Matthew literary genre to be either myth or midrash. Certainly Matthew was not focused upon the historical prophecy fulfilled in Mahershallelhashbaz that I spoke of above. Matthew is looking at Isaiah 6 and the name of his son Immanuel in relation to Isaiah 9 and 11. The name of the son of Isaiah, Immanuel, should be seen as relating to the later prophecies in Isaiah in that context, and Matthew was viewing the poetry of Isaiah more wholisticly, but then merely quoted the single passage from Isaiah 6:14 and did not quote the entire 5 chapters from Isaiah. The later Immanuel was to be the everlasting father, one who would bring peace so that the lion and the calf would eat straw together.

I also doubt that Matthew wrote this in isolation from the kurgma of the primitive Church.

As I have asked elsewhere, how would the gospel author, writing long after the death of Mary, verify that she was a virgin? However, God-virgin affairs were common in stories of that age.

I seem to remember how when Rylands papyrus was discovered, the common dating of the gospel of John was quite late. Suddenly a fragment of John appeared which caused much of the scholarly world move the date of the Gospel of John back a hundred years. I don't see why a first century date for Matthew is so impossible.

I am not much of a scientist. I will leave those discussions to others. I would love to read more on the scientific aspects of the possibility of the flood. However, I don't see much evidence for your quick and easy dismissal of the text as "myth," or "midrash."

I suggest a separate thread to discuss the Matthew virgin birth account. We are getting pretty far afield from the OP.

Regards,

Physicist

 

[TheUnworthyServant]

So heres the topic question, why do some people doubt this, furthermore why do some people go as far as to even mock and riducule it and it's sacredity, such statements come to mind as scholars saying it only happened in the dead sea area or the ship is only as big as 3 galleys put end to end, what is the source of all this animosity? Do you feel this way, do you hate this story,?????

I don't believe in a global flood literally because I accept the scientific consensus that the evidence is absent.

As for the details of the story, it's basic mythology/folklore from a literary standpoint, so it's even more difficult to take literally.

People mock it because it is so hard to imagine how it could have happened. If an omnipotent god intervened, then anything is possible, but most apologists want to avoid that and provide at least a quasi-scientific feasibility.

With all due respect, if you do not believe the flood actually took place (exactly as the Bible states) then you can not call yourself a true follower of Christ. You can not believe part of the Bible and not all. Either the entire Bible is the WORD of God or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

 

[John]

With all due respect, if you do not believe the flood actually took place (exactly as the Bible states) then you can not call yourself a true follower of Christ. You can not believe part of the Bible and not all. Either the entire Bible is the WORD of God or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

These day age and gap theory people are trying to compromise the word of God with evolutionist folly.

 

[Sinthesis]

Fortunately the Bible is vague enough in its description of the flood to allow a vast range of flood scenarios which can all be 'validated' by the same literal scripture when interpreted differently.

The truth is our history contains an epoch ending flood event which Genesis succinctly describes if interpreted correctly.

What this thread is really about is an argument over reconciling one's interpretation of scripture with other aspects of one's world view. Both sides of this equation have variables.

 

[John]

II Peter 3:3-6.

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
(did you know there are people who scoff at the Bible? ;) )

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (uniformatarianism)

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (willingly ignorant aka: dumb on purpose. Don't get mad at me it is what the Bible says )

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished

 

[jasoncran]

is that word world mean the flat one just mesopotamia, i think not, the lord inspired Peter to say that though Peter probbably believed the world was flat.We dont have to understand all the bible and the universe to know that the Lord is real and is ominiscient.