Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Noah's Ark Finally Found?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Moreover, orthodox Christians down through the centuries have held to the view that the chronologies in Genesis are sequential and exact.
    But what does the Bible say?

    i.e. Christian interpretation by the majority (as over and above what the Bible plainly says) isn't always correct.

    Only since modern science with its grossly inaccurate radiometric dating methodologies has this been disputed by a relatively large number of people.
    I won't dispute the "large number of people" part, but various methods of addressing the chronological methods of the Bible is something that has long been debated in terms of, "How should we understand these numbers." This issue has exited long before modern dating methods which added another facet to the debate.

    A simple childlike faith also holds that the chronologies in Genesis are sequential and exact.
    In your opinion, is this something Genesis (or the Bible) states emphatically (chapter:verse for your perspective would be helpful) or an assertion of how the data must be interpreted based on the "child like faith" principle above?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment by the noted Hebrew scholar, James Barr, the only exception being that I don't know how many Hebrew instructors at "world class" universities would agree or not, which is immaterial --

    "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

    1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

    2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

    3. Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark."

    Source -- http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...uotes/barr.asp

    This has been the historic position of orthodox Christianity, and it is CLEARLY what Genesis PLAINLY states.

    Notice I said "states"

    That is CLEARLY what Genesis STATES. Whether one INTERPRETS it that way is another matter, but as I said, Jesus CLEARLY interpreted Genesis literally, and so did Peter, and so does the Holy Spirit.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soxfan23 View Post
    Also, the genre of Genesis 1-11 in my opinion demands that we view it differently than just adding up years and arriving at 2800 BC. There's more to it than some religio-historical interpretation. The genealogies are selective and serve other purposes than historical ones. While I'm sure there's some historical truth to the story about Noah and the Ark, it's not as simple as just "believing what the Bible says."
    While I see what you were trying to say the appeal to genre and looking beyond religio-historical interpretation do bear certain overtones in the broader debate (e.g. see Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation and Greg Beale's The Errosion of Inerrancy). Some who would classify themselves as Evangelicals would argue, based on genre and religio-historical interpretation, that these texts should not be taken as historical. That said I do think the context of the above quote was that the "" indicated common arguement ("believing what the Bible says") of 'simply' adding the chronological dates without broaching the other Biblical data informing chronological studies and the context (genre) of the specific narratives. Of course as you noted this is a very controversial topic and tossing in "some historical truth" instead of "historical true when we account for chronological methodologies found in the Bible" did look like a red herring in favor of the text only being some (i.e. not completely) historical.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment by the noted Hebrew scholar, James Barr, the only exception being that I don't know how many Hebrew instructors at "world class" universities would agree or not, which is immaterial --
    It isn't immaterial as this is an appeal to authority. And for what it is worth, there are Bible-Believing professors (much more conservative than Barr was fwiw) would, based on how the Bible deals with chronological gaps and dates, would disagree.

    Notice I said "states"

    That is CLEARLY what Genesis STATES. Whether one INTERPRETS it that way is another matter, but as I said, Jesus CLEARLY interpreted Genesis literally, and so did Peter, and so does the Holy Spirit.
    Ok, so you have a verse that states this and adds it all up?

    (I only see a quote from AnswersInGenesis.)

    EDIT: I am still chuckling at the appeal to Barr in regards to inerrancy and conservatives. Adelphos, while AiG appeals to Barr, it should be known that Barr didn't believe in inerrancy and he was quite antagonistic toward evangelicals. His volume on Semantics is extremely valuable (if not slightly overstated imo, but exceptional nonetheless) but he really isn't someone to appeal to in regards to inerrancy. Actually, his general point is to force the conclusion it cannot be read any other way (which reputable scholars of Biblical interpretation, i.e. Bible-Believers, don't necessarily agree with) as to affirm his stance that the Bible is errant.

    That doesn't mean Genesis chronologies shouldn't be simply added (the author doesn't do this btw), only that appealing to Barr or those like minded isn't proof or explicit.
    Last edited by Joshua Luna; 04-28-2010 at 04:08 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Luna View Post
    Ok, so you have a verse that states this and adds it all up?

    (I only see a quote from AnswersInGenesis.)
    I got the quote of Barr from AIG, so that why I put "SOURCE" there. That's my source. Do I have a verse that states what Barr stated? Well, there are many verses that would corroborate that, but I suspect you are talking about verses regarding Jesus and Peter.

    Here's just a couple of many from Jesus --

    "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

    Anyone who thinks that Jesus is not referring to the creation in Genesis 1:1 here is not to be taken seriously, for he who asserts that is willfully blind and has a severe spiritual and mental handicap.

    "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark." Matthew 24:37-38

    And one from Peter --

    "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly, And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly." 2 Peter 2:4-6

    Of course, anyone can assert that this doesn't prove that Jesus and the Apostles didn't interpret Genesis literally, but as I stated above, whoever does assert such a thing is not to be taken seriously, for whoever asserts such a thing is not only willfully blind, but spiritually and mentally handicapped.

    EDIT: I didn't "appeal to Barr" as you put it. If you read what I actually wrote, I said "I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment..." thus making the statement ITSELF the focus, not Barr himself, which is why I said it is immaterial who backs it or not, for appeals to authority are vacuous, unless that authority is the Bible itself. You should read more closely what is actually written.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 04-28-2010 at 04:18 PM.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    I would say that I find it difficult to believe that anyone could misunderstand the following verses, especially if one actually thinks them through, but I don't find it difficult at all, having seen how willfully blind people can be --

    "But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the WHOLE EARTH: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark." Genesis 8:9

    "These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the WHOLE EARTH overspread." Genesis 9:19

    "And the WHOLE EARTH was of one language, and of one speech." Genesis 11:1

    Anyone who thinks through the ramifications of these statements can come to only one conclusion concerning the range of the expression "WHOLE EARTH"

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Adelphos, you are avoiding my question: is there a verse that asserts that the data (Biblical facts) in Genesis 5 show be added (interpretation not explicit in the text).

    As a side note, I actually am very conservative in my own beliefs and interpretations, and teach such. My reply was simply an appeal of methodology. You shouldn't assume that I didn't read your quote or pay mindful attention of it. Your quote was immaterial as it only repeated what you asserted as fact, it didn't prove it. So => back to my question asking for a Verse (not a quote of a liberal Biblical scholar). My petition for a Biblical reference interpreting the data (e.g. adding the chronological data, sealing the fact Genesis 5 should be added and eliminating all other possible methods of interpretation) was met with a number of quotes about Jesus and the Apostles believing Genesis.

    Good, so do I. But none of those quotes said anything about the question--how should the data of Genesis 5 be understood.

    Your post really is nothing more than:

    You: Anyone with true, soul saving faith would add up the Genesis chronologies as that is what it clear says.

    Me: Does Genesis directly say we should add up the numbers? Is there a verse directing us explicitly to this method?

    You: Jesus says Genesis is inspired, so you are wrong.

    Of course I never questioned the inspiration of Genesis, only the point being drawn from the text.

    So while I agree that dates should be added (gasp... I don't find the other arguements satisfactory) I still am awaiting chapter:verse proof that this is the inspired way of dealing with the data (A was X years when he begat B, and lived Y years...). I think we can imply such while also acknowledging there are gaps in Biblical chronologies elsewhere as well as the numerical data needs to be dealt with carefully (I know AiG criticizes Theile, but his point on reignal years, coregencies, as well as the dispairity of how years were counted is pretty valid in terms of the ANE data--assuming the Biblical authors counted just like us Gregorian-Calendar loving Westerners is a big methological mistake IMO).

    So is there a verse that adds up all the Chronologies in Genesis 5 or are we making a (solid) deduction that we should?

    Biblical Fact versus Biblical Interpretation (which doesn't mean the interpretation is wrong).

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Joshua, try to show a little integrity. Here is your exact quote --

    "Ok, so you have a verse that states this and adds it all up?"

    This was IMMEDIATELY under my statment in which I said --

    "That is CLEARLY what Genesis STATES. Whether one INTERPRETS it that way is another matter, but as I said, Jesus CLEARLY interpreted Genesis literally, and so did Peter, and so does the Holy Spirit."

    You mentioned NOTHING WHATSOEVER about chronologies in your question. Nada.

    As I said to SoxFan, so I say to you -- I can only deal with what you write. Thus far, you have demonstrated nothing but confusion in your reading of plain statements, and then mischaracterizing the whole issue, as you have just demonstrated.

    If you wanted me to adress chronologies, you should have asked me to address chronologies instead of asking your question IMMEDIATELY IN RESPONSE to my statement about a LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS.

    That was the context. Go back and read it again, only this time pay attention.

    With regard to the chronologies, there is pretty good evidence to deduce the fact that they are sequential and exact, including both Matthew's and Luke's chronologies, but that is a whole other can of worms.

    My statement was that Jesus and the Apostles interpreted Genesis literally.

    I have yet to meet a person who thinks the chronologies are NOT exact and sequential who doesn't also believe that the days of Genesis 1 were NOT actual days, that Adam and Eve were NOT created at the very beginning of the world, and who does NOT believe that the flood of Noah's day was a literal global flood.

    If there is a person who doesn't believe that the chronologies are sequential and exact, but who DOES believe Adam and Eve were created at the very beginning of the universe, and who DOES believe that the days of Genesis were literal 24-hour days, and who DOES believe that the flood was a literal global flood, that would be the first person I've ever encountered who believes both of those contradictory terms.

    And in fact, the one proves the other, if one actually thinks it through.
    Last edited by Adelphos; 04-28-2010 at 05:22 PM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adelphos View Post
    Well, that's sobering. Randall Price has a pretty good reputation, so I am definitely skeptical now.
    Not saying this has bearing on the current subject, but, generally, I love Randall Price. He's usually right on.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,030

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ISalzman View Post
    Not saying this has bearing on the current subject, but, generally, I love Randall Price. He's usually right on.
    Yeah, I agree. That's why I would now be very surprised if this one turned out to be true.

    What bothers me about these hoaxes is that it just gives more amunition to the critics who will assert that "those crazy fanatical Christians will do anything to try to prove their religion", and thus they group us all into the same category.

    Not that their criticisms are valid, but it's just another layer of trivia that we have to wade through to get to the core.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •