Religion Of Christianity - General

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889144]That has no effect on how the text should be interpreted though, it was written with a meaning, to inject that sort of a mindset into the interpretation is not good scholarship. I'd also like to note that this is only one historical interpretation of the narrative. Urban legends aren't ancient texts written in the style of historical narratives, so I don't necessary consider their being debunked of any particular concern. Also it would depend on the literary style of the ancient myths that were debunked whether they have any weight(granted still little) on how the text should be interpreted.[/QUOTE] So it is more likely that the entire planet was flooded by conjured-in water that was later removed with all evidence eliminated, than it is that the story told in Genesis was adapted from a tale that was originally a parable or an exaggeration of a real event that at the time of authorship was assumed to be a historical truth, and so was inscribed as such?

[QUOTE=Ziks;43889226]So it is more likely that the entire planet was flooded by conjured-in water that was later removed with all evidence eliminated, than it is that the story told in Genesis was adapted from a tale that was originally a parable or an exaggeration of a real event that at the time of authorship was assumed to be a historical truth, and so was inscribed as such?[/QUOTE] As I stated before, there is more than just the global flood interpretation, there is the local flood interpretation as well. Which interprets the narrative to be speaking of the entire world of humanity as opposed to the entire world, which is understandable given the time as humanity did not occupy the entire world. This is a reasonable line of interpretation as the word used for the Earth in the narrative is used elsewhere in scripture interchangeably between meaning global and the scope of human existence. A similar concept is applied to the animals on the ark, except the word used refers to animals like livestock or domesticated hunters, beasts vital to human survival Regardless of how reasonable your interpretation may seem to you though, it remains a bad method of literary interpretation.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889369]As I stated before, there is more than just the global flood interpretation, there is the local flood interpretation as well. Which interprets the narrative to be speaking of the entire world of humanity as opposed to the entire world, which is understandable given the time as humanity did not occupy the entire world. This is a reasonable line of interpretation as the word used for the Earth in the narrative is used elsewhere in scripture interchangeably between meaning global and the scope of human existence.[/QUOTE] But even the local flood interpretation is physically impossible since humanity left Africa over 100,000 years ago (way, way before the time of a hypothetical Noah) and was spread out to the extent where a flood that could wipe out humanity would need to practically be a global one. This seems to be boiling down to "reality be damned, it's true because the Bible says it's true". [editline]13th February 2014[/editline] Why even cling on to a myth like that? You're only making your position look ridiculous to outside observers.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889369]As I stated before, there is more than just the global flood interpretation, there is the local flood interpretation as well. Which interprets the narrative to be speaking of the entire world of humanity as opposed to the entire world, which is understandable given the time as humanity did not occupy the entire world. This is a reasonable line of interpretation as the word used for the Earth in the narrative is used elsewhere in scripture interchangeably between meaning global and the scope of human existence. A similar concept is applied to the animals on the ark, except the word used refers to animals like livestock or domesticated hunters, beasts vital to human survival Regardless of how reasonable your interpretation may seem to you though, it remains a bad method of literary interpretation.[/QUOTE] there's no way to prove that 1) humans hadn't migrated for thousands, and thousands of years previous(Lets be honest, if they emmigrated from africa as all homo sapiens did) then they were certainly not the only people on the planet at the time, but would have been the only ones to have been flooded. why is your interpretation more reasonable? what evidence and proof makes it more reasonable? You saying it is is not a declaration of any weight.

I mean you criticise my explanation for lacking evidence when I only used a mechanism that humanity actively exhibits, but then suggest an alternative which is discredited by a mountain of evidence!

[QUOTE=Ziks;43889558]But even the local flood interpretation is physically impossible since humanity left Africa over 100,000 years ago (way, way before the time of a hypothetical Noah) and was spread out to the extent where a flood that could wipe out humanity would need to practically be a global one. This seems to be boiling down to "reality be damned, it's true because the Bible says it's true"[/QUOTE] Note that the exact time and place that the flood took place is not detailed in the narrative, also ancient Mesopotamia was hardly global. [QUOTE]Why even cling on to a myth like that? You're only making your position look ridiculous to outside observers.[/QUOTE] partially because only academic dishonesty could lead someone to the conclusion that the proper way to interpret the narrative is as myth. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43889597]there's no way to prove that 1) humans hadn't migrated for thousands, and thousands of years previous(Lets be honest, if they emmigrated from africa as all homo sapiens did) then they were certainly not the only people on the planet at the time, but would have been the only ones to have been flooded.[/QUOTE] What do you mean by "they certainly were not the only humans on the planet at the time"? [QUOTE]why is your interpretation more reasonable? what evidence and proof makes it more reasonable? You saying it is is not a declaration of any weight.[/QUOTE] The local flood interpretation does not require the flood be global and every single animal be on the ark.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889645]Note that the exact time and place that the flood took place is not detailed in the narrative, also ancient Mesopotamia was hardly global. partially because only academic dishonesty could lead someone to the conclusion that the proper way to interpret the narrative is as myth.[/QUOTE] we're saying that people existed WELL past mesopotamia and inhabited much of the early world you can't say this isn't true without dismissing ACTUAL history

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889645]Note that the exact time and place that the flood took place is not detailed in the narrative, also ancient Mesopotamia was hardly global.[/QUOTE] Humanity wasn't only in Mesopotamia, but also in Central, Northern and Eastern Africa. A flood that covers the entirety of that area has transcended a single flood plain and is now of a scale that requires a similar magical introduction and clean elimination of a stupendous volume of water across two continents. [QUOTE]partially because only academic dishonesty could lead someone to the conclusion that the proper way to interpret the narrative is as myth.[/QUOTE] As declared by you. Similarly, I could declare that only through intellectual dishonesty or ignorance could one conclude that the universe requires a sentient creator entity.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43889719]Humanity wasn't only in Mesopotamia, but also in Central, Northern and Eastern Africa. A flood that covers the entirety of that area has transcended a single flood plain and is now of a scale that requires a similar magical introduction and clean elimination of a stupendous volume of water across two continents.[/QUOTE] You seem to be using the broadest possible description of humanity in what you're saying though, I'm using the term in its common sense to refer to modern humans. [QUOTE]As declared by you. Similarly, I could declare that only through intellectual dishonesty or ignorance could one conclude that the universe requires a sentient creator entity.[/QUOTE] Also the observations of paleontology have no effect on the literary analysis of what an ancient author was attempting to convey.

Also the time that the flood occurred is bounded by the requirement that knowledge of it must have been propagated culturally for the intervening tens of thousands of years, and so must not have occurred before we possessed the language required to describe it. [editline]13th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889773]You seem to be using the broadest possible description of humanity in what you're saying though, I'm using the term in its common sense to refer to modern humans.[/QUOTE] Me too, Homo Sapiens. I could go into Homo Heidelbergensis and family who were in Europe over 500,000 years ago.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889773]You seem to be using the broadest possible description of humanity in what you're saying though, I'm using the term in its common sense to refer to modern humans. Also the observations of paleontology have no effect on the literary analysis of what an ancient author was attempting to convey.[/QUOTE] yes we're all refering to them as well. Unless you're saying humanity started in mesopotamia and not africa because there's no reason using even your logic here to believe that all homo sapiens where actually in that region A flood would have to be semi global if not global to reach that amount. and it does if they say in a literal or metaphorical terms that all of humanity was consumed in a great world wide flood and you counter with the idea it was a local flood affecting all humans in either case you're not right

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889773]Also the observations of paleontology have no effect on the literary analysis of what an ancient author was attempting to convey.[/QUOTE] Pure literary analysis seems like a pretty limited technique then, because surely if we can determine the nature of that author's environment through the study of physical evidence we can establish what they were attempting to describe. [editline]13th February 2014[/editline] We're dealing with anecdotal evidence vs physical evidence at this point. I'll take the physical evidence any time.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43889776]Also the time that the flood occurred is bounded by the requirement that knowledge of it must have been propagated culturally for the intervening tens of thousands of years, and so must not have occurred before we possessed the language required to describe it.[/QUOTE] Not quite sure where you're getting an exact date for a flood as I've made no mention of one. [QUOTE]Me too, Homo Sapiens. I could go into Homo Heidelbergensis and family who were in Europe over 500,000 years ago.[/QUOTE] All modern humans are Homo Sapiens, but not all Homo Sapiens are modern humans. Modern humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. [QUOTE=Ziks;43889828]Pure literary analysis seems like a pretty limited technique then, because surely if we can determine the nature of that author's environment through the study of physical evidence we can establish what they were attempting to describe. [editline]13th February 2014[/editline] We're dealing with anecdotal evidence vs physical evidence at this point. I'll take the physical evidence any time.[/QUOTE] We were originally talking purely about literary interpretation, the matter of trying to find a historical basis for the narrative is a completely different issue.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889848]Not quite sure where you're getting an exact date for a flood as I've made no mention of one.[/QUOTE] I'm not, I'm providing a lower bound for you. [QUOTE]All modern humans are Homo Sapiens, but not all Homo Sapiens are modern humans. Modern humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens.[/QUOTE] Okay, to refine it more I'm only talking about the Homo Sapiens that modern humanity is descended from.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889848]Not quite sure where you're getting an exact date for a flood as I've made no mention of one. All modern humans are Homo Sapiens, but not all Homo Sapiens are modern humans. Modern humans are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. We were originally talking purely about literary interpretation, the matter of trying to find a historical basis for the narrative is a completely different issue.[/QUOTE] So if we're just dealing purely with literary interpretation, that kind of leaves it very wide open, no? Oh right, you told me earlier in a different discussion you don't believe there's anyone's opinions involved in the interpretation of scripture.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889848]We were originally talking purely about literary interpretation, the matter of trying to find a historical basis for the narrative is a completely different issue.[/QUOTE] And I'm maintaining that pure literary analysis is an unsound and incomplete method for ascertaining the intentions of the authors, at least compared to a holistic approach. But I can't blame you for wanting to restrict the arguments we pose against you.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43889899]I'm not, I'm providing a lower bound for you.[/QUOTE] Ah, sorry, missed that. There wouldn't be any period where modern humans would be unable to communicate through language though, unless you're talking about the ancestors of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. [QUOTE]Okay, to refine it more I'm only talking about the Homo Sapiens that modern humanity is descended from.[/QUOTE] Well that would explain why what I was saying seemed so ridiculous to you.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889944]Well that would explain why what I was saying seemed so ridiculous to you.[/QUOTE] Sorry, was a little ambiguous there. I'm talking about the subset of Homo Sapiens that currently living members of the human race are descended from, so my point still stands.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43888438] Hey there, how's the evolution denial going? [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1331103&p=43796579&viewfull=1#post43796579[/url] [/QUOTE] Pretty well, apparently. I made one mod upset enough he resorted to banning me. Still waiting on you to come up with any reason for or proof of that initial burst of spacial expansion that caused the big bang.

[QUOTE=Galactic;43889983]Pretty well, apparently. I made one mod upset enough he resorted to banning me.[/QUOTE] that's what happens when you flame

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43889944]Ah, sorry, missed that. There wouldn't be any period where modern humans would be unable to communicate through language though, unless you're talking about the ancestors of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.[/QUOTE] Sure, we could communicate through language for hundreds of thousands of years, but the point at which we developed a sophisticated language capable of expressing narratives is unknown. [editline]13th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Galactic;43889983]Pretty well, apparently. I made one mod upset enough he resorted to banning me.[/QUOTE] Perhaps directly calling someone an idiot may have been a catalyst.

It seems like what he's trying to say (please tell me if I"m wrong) is that based on looking at the writing style it doesn't seem to be a myth story. It doesn't include the things we normally associate with myths, it has many more specific details than myths usually have (exactly building dimensions), and seems to be written as a historical account. So to call it a myth right off the bat because the historical nature seems non-obvious would be to ignore common literary analysis when it comes to figuring out what the intended purpose of the author was.

[QUOTE=Ziks;43889974]Sorry, was a little ambiguous there. I'm talking about the subset of Homo Sapiens that currently living members of the human race are descended from, so my point still stands.[/QUOTE] Well it's difficult to come up with an explanation when I'm not absolutely sure what you're talking about, I'm the first to admit that I don't have an extensive knowledge of the migratory paths of early hominins. [QUOTE=Ziks;43890008]Sure, we could communicate through language for hundreds of thousands of years, but the point at which we developed a sophisticated language capable of expressing narratives is unknown.[/QUOTE] Is there a definite date for this point? [QUOTE=sgman91;43890041]It seems like what he's trying to say (please tell me if I"m wrong) is that based on looking at the writing style it doesn't seem to be a myth story. It doesn't include the things we normally associate with myths, it has many more specific details than myths usually have (exactly building dimensions), and seems to be written as a historical account.[/QUOTE] That was essentially what I was trying to say, I suppose I didn't say it clear enough.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43889990]that's what happens when you flame[/QUOTE] Really, because I've got this wonderful example of your preceding flame here [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43780656]oh my we have a literal stephen hawking in this thread ready to rewrite all of human cosmology[/QUOTE] Since nothing happend to you it is apparently what happens when you respond to a flame when the mods disagree with you. I'll speak no further of this here though, it is incredibly off topic.

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43890064]Is there a definite date for this point?[/QUOTE] I kind of answered that in the post you quoted, it is currently unknown and will be difficult (perhaps impossible) to establish since we're dealing with something that leaves little for us to physically analyse. [QUOTE]That was essentially what I was trying to say, I suppose I didn't say it clear enough.[/QUOTE] Didn't I already counter that? That whoever penned the first iteration of the Book of Genesis may have believed it was a historical account? [editline]13th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Galactic;43890085]Since nothing happend to you it is apparently what happens when you respond to a flame when the mods disagree with you.[/QUOTE] Did he directly insult you? He was emphasising the irrationality of your position, making the claim that you had somehow discovered a conspiracy in modern cosmology.

[QUOTE=Galactic;43890085]Really, because I've got this wonderful example of your preceding flame here Since nothing happend to you it is apparently what happens when you respond to a flame when the mods disagree with you. I'll speak no further of this here though, it is incredibly off topic.[/QUOTE] that's not a flame that's satirizing what you were saying to a ridiculous level where did I say you were an idiot? I actually said you were the smartest man alive if you were correct. Seeing as you believe yourself to be correct and everyone who disagrees with you to be wrong, then you are in fact, one of the smartest men alive, no? but you called me an idiot and that's a straight up flame. no one has been banned for being christian. Not even you.

[QUOTE=Pythonox;43853638]Yeah the growing up with poorly religious people leads to confusing minds. But anyways, with your mention of the Big Bang Theory it basically comes to me as this. The Big Bang Theory says there was one atom that had to create everything but no one knew how it actually appeared or came to be. What's your take on that? Personally I believe that, our concept of creation happened after creation was non-existent. As, that atom did not HAVE to be created nor did space, because space expands by each second, space and that atom were there, building energy, to create something.[/QUOTE] Don't feel bad for misunderstanding what they're saying now. Lemaître, the mind behind the big bang theory and a Roman Catholic priest, called the big bang theory his "hypothesis of the primeval atom".

[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;43890064]Well it's difficult to come up with an explanation when I'm not absolutely sure what you're talking about, I'm the first to admit that I don't have an extensive knowledge of the migratory paths of early hominins. Is there a definite date for this point? That was essentially what I was trying to say, I suppose I didn't say it clear enough.[/QUOTE] Well the experts believe from what I've read that we started out in northern africa and spread out in every direction virtually. Early humans would have gone both south, towards south africa, and east, away from the vast sahara desert. The ones that went east would have been presented with a huge range of mobility, and as such we see that areas that developed very early histories are quite crowded. For instance, we know that much of the population would have migrated to modern day china and done what they could to get to japan later down the road. They also would have gone north to russia, to europe, and to the Mediterranean as well as west from there to modern day france. France has ancient cave art that can be dated to 10,000 BC+, with possibilities of it even going further back in history. Mankind may not have been global, but they certainly were across africa, europe, and asia in great distributions. The exact time of this isn't known, but if we take the most ancient histories we have in all of those areas individually, we can start to get an idea that they must have been there for a long time. We know these areas would have been populated well before 10,000 BC, which predates any and all hints of christian mythology by thousands of years, even predates ancient pre-Judaism.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43890269]that's not a flame that's satirizing what you were saying to a ridiculous level where did I say you were an idiot? I actually said you were the smartest man alive if you were correct. Seeing as you believe yourself to be correct and everyone who disagrees with you to be wrong, then you are in fact, one of the smartest men alive, no? but you called me an idiot and that's a straight up flame. no one has been banned for being christian. Not even you.[/QUOTE] Even a idiot knows what calling someone a genius sarcastically means.

[QUOTE=Galactic;43890321]Even a idiot knows what calling someone a genius sarcastically means.[/QUOTE] No, I genuinely mean that. If you are correct, you are one of the smartest men alive.