This is not directly on point vis-à-vis the ark myth—
By the time, at least, of the Yahwist strain of the Torah (the so-called “Book of J” ), humanity seems to have reached a point of intellectual development capable of stylized literary production (combinations of myth, metaphor, allegory, symbol—overlaid, perhaps, over some historical memories), which implies some development in philosophical thinking. Books like Job and Ecclesiastes, for example, accentuate the latter.
Not that there aren’t earlier such works. But, by the time humanity is intellectually capable of such sophisticated literary construction, the notion of them being primitive, fearful superstitionists huddling in the cave-mouth seems a bit absurd. To read such literary works as no more than expressions of rank superstition—taken with absolute literality by the authors—seems frankly ludicrous. It seems just as ludicrous to me, whether it is expressed by religious literalists or secularists (I’m not sure that’s a sound division, but likely you know what I mean).
On the other hand, that is not to imply that our ancestors at that point had developed the wherewithal to begin think in the empirical terms of modern science.
One of the great lines, in my opinion, of modern English poetry is: “The force that through the green fuse drives the flower, drives my green age” —Dylan Thomas. I have never thought that this line expresses Dylan’s (ignorant) understanding of biology, or that he intended it so.
But, when it comes, say, to the opening verses of Genesis, both Biblical literalists and their critics sometimes act as if the author(s) thought they were delivering empirical statements rather than poetry. This dismisses out of hand the fact that such ancients may have been well aware of what they did not know (could not know), and had only myth and poetry to offer. If one asserts that they “believed” their myths and metaphors, I have to ask: in what way? Especially when the human intellect had reached the point where it was capable of such, again, highly stylized mythological/literary presentations.
My only real point is that, while one should perhaps not assume too much knowledge on the part of our literate ancestors, one should also not assume too much stupidity in the face of what they knew they did not know.
______________________________________
It is interesting to me that the kind of Biblical literalism that leads to the kinds of arguments one finds on this thread seems almost entirely absent from rabbinical Judaism, which has accepted the advances of human knowledge. In my extensive studies, I have yet to find a religious Jewish scholar that would not accept the scientific understandings put forth here by the likes of serigado and Mexico and ammanion, for example. Maybe I have somehow skirted around whatever Jewish “fundamentalists” there may be out there; but I have read the orthodox likes of Rav Kook. . .
Originally posted by vistesdGood Post....
This is not directly on point vis-à-vis the ark myth—
______________________________________
It is interesting to me that the kind of Biblical literalism that leads to the kinds of arguments one finds on this thread seems almost entirely absent from rabbinical Judaism, which has accepted the advances of human knowledge. In my extensive studies, I have y ...[text shortened]... sh “fundamentalists” there may be out there; but I have read the orthodox likes of Rav Kook. . .
Actually the fundamentalist Jews are quite amusing on this topic...... They openly admit that their belief contradict science. however their response is quite funny and generally involves arguments along the lines of "god put all the evidence for evolution and an old earth here as it is to make us think for ourselves" And they're quite happy in the knowledge that what they believe and science don't mix, they put god permanently beyond our understanding and say that all the science in the world will never change that. Thus trying to explain him/her with science is pointless....
As far as I know anyway....
Originally posted by vistesdThat is an excellent point to keep in mind when discussing stories from the Tanakh. It's something that I frankly hadn't given a lot of thought -- likely because I had gotten so caught up in the crazy argument over literal interpretations. Perhaps a year or two ago I decided that such arguments were more or less a waste of time, and I decided not to bother with the Old Testament stories. However, when you place these stories in the context of a literary culture, I can see why the subject becomes fascinating again.
This is not directly on point vis-à-vis the ark myth—
By the time, at least, of the Yahwist strain of the Torah (the so-called “Book of J” ), humanity seems to have reached a point of intellectual development capable of stylized literary production (combinations of myth, metaphor, allegory, symbol—overlaid, perhaps, over some historical memories), which i ...[text shortened]... sh “fundamentalists” there may be out there; but I have read the orthodox likes of Rav Kook. . .
Originally posted by telerionNo where did I say sharks ate plants. You don't want to accept what
Uhm . . . KJ why are you trying to explain a miracle? Once you get away from "Goddunnit because the Bible says so" you run into big trouble.
The whole idea that lions and wolves and sharks were eating plants is just ridiculous. You could say that God magically changed them and made their entire physiology adapted to animal hunting/consumption. B ...[text shortened]... self would the pre-flood version still be something would recognize as a lion, wolf, or shark?
is written don't, it is completely up to you. If you don't like discussions
on what scripture says, don't bother reading them, why do you bother,
it isn't like you care one way or another do you?
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionYou believe all life came from non-life without direction don't you?
C'mon, seriously now Kelly, you really don't believe this crap.
Only an absolute moron would, surely.
As an Australian, I'm interested in how Noah incorporated the many native marsupial species from Australia into his ark collection, when the entire continent was unknown by those living in the middle east at the time the biblical stories were written ... sorry, created by God. (Gotta laugh at that one.)
You believe everything just came into play and we get the complex
life we see today? You find that easier to believe than God did it?
I do believe God created it all in six days and rested on the seventh,
I do believe God did the way it is written. You are welcome to your
beliefs and I have mine.
Kelly
Originally posted by MexicoYou know I have been asking you questions, when are you going
That's a very good point. How did all the possums end up here (Currently in WA)?
And more importantly how did all the Isolated evolution happen? Such as the unique tasmanian devil.... Or even the incredibly stupid but none the less pervasive Kangaroo.....
Also how do you explain the evolutionary convergence between these Isolated species and those seen ...[text shortened]... orphology........
come on let me strap in I want to hear your explanation for this one.....
to start answering them?
Kelly
Originally posted by MexicoStupidity must stop being tolerated.
If you get personal then they'll just write you off as being an god hate who's opinion doesn't matter...... Thats how people who think theres logic behind a completely irrational belief work; they'll argue you in circles till you get frustrated then they use your frustration to make themselves feel like they've won through logically argument. Its quite a brilliant argument technique...
When someone thinks for real that the stories from the Bible are literally true, I think they should be forbidden to have kids or educate them.
We had our learning from history from religious fundamentalism. It's time to stop it.
Originally posted by KellyJayI accept your viewpoint as valid - although of course I don't share it.
You believe all life came from non-life without direction don't you?
You believe everything just came into play and we get the complex
life we see today? You find that easier to believe than God did it?
I do believe God created it all in six days and rested on the seventh,
I do believe God did the way it is written. You are welcome to your
beliefs and I have mine.
Kelly
But a literal interpretation of the bible is nonsensical.
Do you not understand that there are many christians - certainly the majority in Australia at least - who do not need to believe in the literal truth of the bible to have their belief and faith confirmed?
Why do you think that is?
I think it's because the alternative - to believe as you do - is ridiculous.
What's even more ironic is that you're a christian - I could accept you taking a literal view of the New Testament, but you extend this to include the entire bible; including the Jewish Old Testament.
Does it not strike you as strange that most Jews don't take their own sacred text as literal, and yet someone from a different faith does?
Originally posted by amannionGood point about marsupials.
C'mon, seriously now Kelly, you really don't believe this crap.
Only an absolute moron would, surely.
As an Australian, I'm interested in how Noah incorporated the many native marsupial species from Australia into his ark collection, when the entire continent was unknown by those living in the middle east at the time the biblical stories were written ... sorry, created by God. (Gotta laugh at that one.)
For the story to be true we would all be descendants of Noah. How did Noah povoate Australia with aborigines, and all places of the world with different races? Maybe there was more then one ark?
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, I really don't care that much. But if you're going to try to justify your beliefs with anything other than god-magic, then I'm gonna have something to say. First, let's cut off the dodging right now. Fine, you don't want to include sharks. Obviously fish couldn't survive a massive worldwide flood without some magic, but I'll just let that one drop. You're still basically saying that lions, wolves, and saber tooth tigers, and perhaps even Tyrannosaurus Rex were originally well-designed to only eat plant matter. We know that their entire physiology from teeth to digestive system to skeletomuscular structure is completely specialized for hunting and killing animals. I'm just wondering if
No where did I say sharks ate plants. You don't want to accept what
is written don't, it is completely up to you. If you don't like discussions
on what scripture says, don't bother reading them, why do you bother,
it isn't like you care one way or another do you?
Kelly
1) you think that your god drastically altered every aspect of these animals to convert them from peaceful plant eaters to ferocious killing machines or did they evolve this features post-flood, and
2) if you believe (1), do you'd agree that the changes required to make a lion a well-designed plant-eater would be so drastic that it would be difficult to even call it a 'lion'?
Oh one final question that is kind of bugging me too, do you believe that T-rex went extict before or after the flood?
Edit: BTW if you don't think sharks originally ate plants, what do you think they ate?
Originally posted by telerionAnother good one: Ice Age was after the flood, and ended around 1500 BC!
No, I really don't care that much. But if you're going to try to justify your beliefs with anything other than god-magic, then I'm gonna have something to say. First, let's cut off the dodging right now. Fine, you don't want to include sharks. Obviously fish couldn't survive a massive worldwide flood without some magic, but I'll just let that one drop. ...[text shortened]... : BTW if you don't think sharks originally ate plants, what do you think they ate?
Well... all this means the Flood was after egyptian civilization made their 1st pyramids.
They were wiped out, repopulated by the sons of Noah, and kept building some more pyramids.
Or maybe history is just plain wrong...
Either way, how could Noah (or his descendants) populate australia with aborigines??
This is getting so ridiculous it's starting to lose the fun 🙁
Originally posted by serigadoYes, I've asked KJ in the past about the Egyptian empire and the very rapid spread of humanity (in order to get early Chinese civilization in full swing). Like you say, the whole thing is ridiculous. I unwisely decided to press KJ about these supposed vegan turned voracious predators. I doubt I'll even find out what KJ thinks sharks ate. It is really unfortunate to see a nice guy like KJ reduced to this.
Another good one: Ice Age was after the flood, and ended around 1500 BC!
Well... all this means the Flood was after egyptian civilization made their 1st pyramids.
They were wiped out, repopulated by the sons of Noah, and kept building some more pyramids.
Or maybe history is just plain wrong...
Either way, how could Noah (or his descendants) populate australia with aborigines??
This is getting so ridiculous it's starting to lose the fun 🙁
Originally posted by amannionWhy do you say the literal is nonsensical? You know or understand
I accept your viewpoint as valid - although of course I don't share it.
But a literal interpretation of the bible is nonsensical.
Do you not understand that there are many christians - certainly the majority in Australia at least - who do not need to believe in the literal truth of the bible to have their belief and faith confirmed?
Why do you think that ...[text shortened]... s don't take their own sacred text as literal, and yet someone from a different faith does?
God and God's abilities? You reject it because nothing you believe
in can do that which the scripture says; it does not mean that even
though you reject God, God didn't do it anyway.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionNo it does not strike me as strange the the Jewish people do not take
I accept your viewpoint as valid - although of course I don't share it.
But a literal interpretation of the bible is nonsensical.
Do you not understand that there are many christians - certainly the majority in Australia at least - who do not need to believe in the literal truth of the bible to have their belief and faith confirmed?
Why do you think that ...[text shortened]... s don't take their own sacred text as literal, and yet someone from a different faith does?
the sacred text as literal, when did they ever accept it as is? Even when
God was moving directly in their lives in huge ways there were people
falling away left and right when you read the text.
Kelly