Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical interpretation

1st, Mt.24:38 is hardly "quoting Atrahasis." Both mention eating & drinking but Mt. saying nothing about "feasting" & Atrahasis nothing about marriage. Jesus' reference is simply to people going about their daily affairs, not about special feasts. & of course daily affairs includes eating & drinking. Jesus wouldn't have needed any special information to infer that people were doing that.

2d, was this supposed to be a response to what I said about historical accuracy & theological use? If so, what?

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Dick Fischer
  To: 'George Murphy'
  Cc: ASA
  Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:45 PM
  Subject: RE: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical interpretation

  Hi George:

  Here is one thing I find interesting. When Jesus spoke about the flood, he said: "For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark ." (Mt. 24:38). There is nothing about eating and drinking in Genesis, he was quoting Atrahasis:

  "he invited his people
  ... to a feast
  ... his family was brought on board.
  While one was eating and another was drinking,
  he went in and out; he could not sit, could not kneel,
  for his heart was broken, he was retching gall."

  Dick Fischer, GPA president

  Genesis Proclaimed Association

  "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"

  www.genesisproclaimed.org

  -----Original Message-----
  From: George Murphy [mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
  Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:08 PM
  To: Dick Fischer; 'Dehler, Bernie'
  Cc: ASA
  Subject: Re: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical interpretation

  Dick -

  On the last paragraph: 1st, of course "fabrication" is a heavily loaded term. Having noted that, the answer to the question "would that not also call into question the theological lessons derived therefrom?" is "No." Again I'll cite Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan. There is no reason to think that the events Jesus describes actually happened (i.e., they may have been a "fabrication" in your terminology) - & more importantly, it doesn't make the slightest difference to the theological use Jesus makes of the story whether they really happened or not. Other examples could, of course, be given.

  Shalom
  George
  http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Dick Fischer

    To: 'Dehler, Bernie'

    Cc: ASA

    Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2:44 PM

    Subject: RE: [asa] Noah's Ark- the debate over floods... and biblical interpretation

    Hi Bernie:

    You raise a valid point, one that I have asked myself for many years. The broad question is whether or not there was a flood, and if there was, when was it and what was the extent? I think that question can be answered readily. The question you raise is the accuracy of the account. Did the Bible writer get all his facts straight? If there are mistakes in the narrative, are there enough to discount or disbelieve the entire narrative in Genesis altogether?

    Compared to the parallel flood accounts the one in Genesis is the odd one out on the subject of duration. Parallel accounts describe a week long voyage while Noah's trip in Genesis takes a year. But whatever the case, mistake or not, scribal error or not, that is no reason to jump to some other position that can't be defended by anything.

    Rainy seasons are annual events in Iraq occurring in the spring when the snow melts on the mountains in the north and surges down the rivers on to the flat plain that is southern Mesopotamia. If there were two back to back flood episodes, and Noah chose to remain in the boat to ride out two rainy seasons, that could take a year and might explain the long voyage in Genesis versus the short voyage in the parallel accounts. I'm only throwing that out as one possible explanation.

    So, say my guess is wrong. In court trials where witnesses give their accounts of a crime they have seen rarely are all testimonies exactly the same. Perspectives differ, perceptions aren't the same, memories vary. Yet the judge or jury must decide guilt or innocence on the totality of evidence presented. Conflicting testimonies are normal and to be expected.

    I agree the primary focus should be on the theological lessons based upon the historical narrative. If the historical account was a fabrication, however, would that not also call into question the theological lessons derived therefrom?

    Dick Fischer, GPA president

    Genesis Proclaimed Association

    "Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"

    www.genesisproclaimed.org

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 8 07:08:33 2009