[Achronos]

Hey I said it would be of interest to some, glad to see they were enjoyed.

[Achronos]

Also the event of the flood had a great allegorical importance for the Apostles and the Church Fathers, since Peter himself indicates the Ark as a type for Christ and the Church, and the flood as a type for baptism.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also the event of the flood had a great allegorical importance for the Apostles and the Church Fathers, since Peter himself indicates the Ark as a type for Christ and the Church, and the flood as a type for baptism.

That's some expensive symbolism.

[Achronos]

The story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.

By the way, some skeptics and non-Christians have a big problem with Christianity for this reason. They demand a literal reading of the OT and don't realize the image-in-ary approach of the prophecies. The Fathers also saw the visible creation itself as an image, a symbol, of heavenly realities...therefore it should not be taken "literally" either.

That is why it's in miraculous terms that Jesus "opened their understanding" about the scriptures for the apostles on the Road to Emmaus. Because the explicit-only approach leads to confusion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The problem with that apology is that this symbolism still advocates a morality of killing one's mistakes, a justice which asserts that the flaw is the responsibility of the flawed, and this results in the profoundly anti-human stance of Christianity.  Whether it actually happened or not is irrelevant.

[Cycel]

The story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.

By the way, some skeptics and non-Christians have a big problem with Christianity for this reason.

I know I do.  Genesis is probably more responsible for ending my belief in God than any other single factor.

They demand a literal reading of the OT and don't realize the image-in-ary approach of the prophecies.

The literal approach was the only one I was taught.  It is the only acceptable approach from the point of view of many conservative evangelical Christians.  They argue that once the Creation story is permitted a non-literal interpretation then the same leniency can be granted any part of the Bible.  Where does one stop?  Was Christ's birth really miraculous or do we allow that his conception was a normal one between a man and a woman?  Did he really rise from the dead or are we to understand the Resurrection as a metaphor of how we can all experience a rebirth during our lives?  This is the concern, and though I am an atheist I can certainly appreciate this reasoned objection to making allowances.  

The Fathers also saw the visible creation itself as an image, a symbol, of heavenly realities...therefore it should not be taken "literally" either.

I don't know what your source is for getting at the mind set of those who created the biblical myths, but I think it safe to say they were borrowed, inherited might be closer to the truth, from older traditions. This argument that the ancients didn't really believe in the literal truth of their myths, it seems to me, is really an argument imagined by those who want the myths to hold some deep truth.  One might as well look to the diverse native American myths and search for some deep well of truth in them.  It's a feel-good measure, but not very rational.

That is why it's in miraculous terms that Jesus "opened their understanding" about the scriptures for the apostles on the Road to Emmaus. Because the explicit-only approach leads to confusion.

The confusion arises anytime those of faith, in the modern world, attempt to interpret -- in a way that makes sense -- the spiritual beliefs of those who lived two millennium ago.  The fact is secular explanations work perfectly well in explaining the spiritual texts.

[Ihateyoumike]

The story of the world's creation is an image. It might have happened that explicit way, or probably a different way that we understand better now. But it was an image of what happened. God made the world in different steps, if not in the explicit way we would read it.

By the way, some skeptics and non-Christians have a big problem with Christianity for this reason. They demand a literal reading of the OT and don't realize the image-in-ary approach of the prophecies. The Fathers also saw the visible creation itself as an image, a symbol, of heavenly realities...therefore it should not be taken "literally" either.

That is why it's in miraculous terms that Jesus "opened their understanding" about the scriptures for the apostles on the Road to Emmaus. Because the explicit-only approach leads to confusion.

Funny, seems to me that nothing in the old or new testament can be taken explicitly without leading to too much confusion.
I think you got it right when you wrote "image-in-ary," that sums it all up very well.

[Too Few Lions]

I just posted this on aniother thread about the Flood, but I may as well post it here too! This is my take on the story as a student of mythology and archaeology / ancient history...

There's a reason why Flood myths exist from all over the world, even from places where flooding never occurred, and it's that the Flood myths are allegorical. They're to do with the movement of the stars in the heavens over long periods of time, maybe linked to the idea of the Great or Platonic Year. It may be that the ancients believed that this Great Year of the movement of the stars due to precession had a summer and a winter, just like our years. During the summer the world was cleansed or destroyed by a great conflagration, and during the winter by a great flood. All people share the night sky, hence the same allegorical myth could be found in places where floods didn't historically occur.

Although the earliest flood myths known are from Mesopotamia, and the biblical version's the most famous, the Greek variants are the best for decoding the myth. The two main Greek flood myths were that of Deucalion (very similar to the Noah account) and Atlantis (the flood myth created by Plato). I always wonder why people try to find a historical basis for Atlantis (like the eruption of Thera) as Plato makes it clear the story is allegorical / mythological, and not historical. He clearly mentions the cycle of Flood and Conflagration;

‘There have been and will be many different calamities to destroy mankind, the greatest of them by fire and water…Your story of how Phaethon, child of the sun, harnessed his father’s chariot, but was unable to guide it along his father’s course and so burnt up things on the earth and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt, is a mythical version of the truth that there is at long intervals a variation in the course of the heavenly bodies and a consequent widespread destruction by fire of things on the earth…on the other hand the gods purge the earth with a deluge.’

The 2nd Century philosopher Celsus also mentioned this cycle in his brilliant critique of Christianity called 'On the True Doctrine' (which should be compulsory reading for all atheists) when talking about the Christians belief in the Second Coming / Final Judgement;

'They postulate, for example, that their Messiah will return as a conqueror on the clouds, and that he will rain fire upon the earth in his battle with the princes of the air, and that the whole world, with the exception of Christians, will be consumed with fire. An interesting idea â€" and hardly an original one. The idea came from the Greeks and others â€" namely, that after cycles of years and because of the fortuitous conjunctions of certain stars there are conflagrations and floods, and that after the last flood, in the time of Deucalion, the cycle demands a conflagration in accordance with the alternating succession of the universe. This is responsible for the silly opinion of some Christians that God will come down and rain fire upon the earth.’

The cycle of Flood and Conflagration is also mentioned in the Corpus Hermeticum;

‘God the creator, when he looked upon the things that happened, established his design, which is good, against the disorder. Sometimes he submerged it in a great flood, at other times he burned it in a searing fire.’

I'm really amazed that people still try to explain the Flood by looking for an actual historical event. It seems the modern mind isn't imaginative enough to think in terms of mythology and allegory!

[TheJackel]

I just posted this on aniother thread about the Flood, but I may as well post it here too! This is my take on the story as a student of mythology and archaeology / ancient history...

There's a reason why Flood myths exist from all over the world, even from places where flooding never occurred, and it's that the Flood myths are allegorical. They're to do with the movement of the stars in the heavens over long periods of time, maybe linked to the idea of the Great or Platonic Year. It may be that the ancients believed that this Great Year of the movement of the stars due to precession had a summer and a winter, just like our years. During the summer the world was cleansed or destroyed by a great conflagration, and during the winter by a great flood. All people share the night sky, hence the same allegorical myth could be found in places where floods didn't historically occur.

Although the earliest flood myths known are from Mesopotamia, and the biblical version's the most famous, the Greek variants are the best for decoding the myth. The two main Greek flood myths were that of Deucalion (very similar to the Noah account) and Atlantis (the flood myth created by Plato). I always wonder why people try to find a historical basis for Atlantis (like the eruption of Thera) as Plato makes it clear the story is allegorical / mythological, and not historical. He clearly mentions the cycle of Flood and Conflagration;

‘There have been and will be many different calamities to destroy mankind, the greatest of them by fire and water…Your story of how Phaethon, child of the sun, harnessed his father’s chariot, but was unable to guide it along his father’s course and so burnt up things on the earth and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt, is a mythical version of the truth that there is at long intervals a variation in the course of the heavenly bodies and a consequent widespread destruction by fire of things on the earth…on the other hand the gods purge the earth with a deluge.’

The 2nd Century philosopher Celsus also mentioned this cycle in his brilliant critique of Christianity called 'On the True Doctrine' (which should be compulsory reading for all atheists) when talking about the Christians belief in the Second Coming / Final Judgement;

'They postulate, for example, that their Messiah will return as a conqueror on the clouds, and that he will rain fire upon the earth in his battle with the princes of the air, and that the whole world, with the exception of Christians, will be consumed with fire. An interesting idea â€" and hardly an original one. The idea came from the Greeks and others â€" namely, that after cycles of years and because of the fortuitous conjunctions of certain stars there are conflagrations and floods, and that after the last flood, in the time of Deucalion, the cycle demands a conflagration in accordance with the alternating succession of the universe. This is responsible for the silly opinion of some Christians that God will come down and rain fire upon the earth.’

The cycle of Flood and Conflagration is also mentioned in the Corpus Hermeticum;

‘God the creator, when he looked upon the things that happened, established his design, which is good, against the disorder. Sometimes he submerged it in a great flood, at other times he burned it in a searing fire.’

I'm really amazed that people still try to explain the Flood by looking for an actual historical event. It seems the modern mind isn't imaginative enough to think in terms of mythology and allegory!

I think it would have been much easier to just state:  

Floods happen, have happened, and ancient or religious people will claim it was an act of GOD for whatever reason or agenda.

[Too Few Lions]

Very true, my point was I think the Flood Myth (like pretty much all the other stories in the Bible) is allegorical, and nothing to do with an actual physical or historical flood. Therefore there's no point in trying to debunk it scientifically and say that it can't logistically have happened based on the biblical account. Albeit I did say it in a very long winded manner...

[SomewhereInND]

Does anyone else find it sad/disappointing that we can be sucked into silly debates like this one?

Yeah, yeah....freedom of speech and all that stuff....but still, it is pretty obvious that this type of silliness can easily lead to things like Jared Loughner.

I know that the above is going to irritate some of you (please don't shoot me),  I was just wondering if anyone else can see where I am coming from.  The keyword to my question  is 'SAD/DISAPPOINTING'.

[fester30]

I just never liked the idea when I went to church growing up that some of the Bible was to be taken as nice stories, or symbolism, but other parts were word-for-word literal.  Every time new science came along to explain what we used to think was God's work, the explanation was that part of the Bible was now symbolism or image-in-ary.  When I was young, it was inspired by God.  Then, when we saw things like the different genealogies in two of the books in the gospel, it was inspired by God, but written by imperfect men.  That explains it.  The worst part was that we just had to take the pastor's word for what was literal and what wasn't, and every preacher has a different idea of that.

[ForTheLoveOfAll]

Blasphemy, everybody knows the dinosaurs were on the ark and that Jesus was a raptor.

[PaulKing]

I calculated that for the sea to have covered the tallest mountain plus 15 cubits (17.5" each) the mass of water would have to be 145 times the entire ice mass of both Poles melting in a matter of a day or two.

[fester30]

I calculated that for the sea to have covered the tallest mountain plus 15 cubits (17.5" each) the mass of water would have to be 145 times the entire ice mass of both Poles melting in a matter of a day or two.

But that doesn't stop the limitless god from practicing his all-powerfulness to flood the world and then make the excess water disappear beyond the firmament.