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

Moorad posted, in part: "I am never surprised to hear that some
account in the Bible appeared in earlier writings. In fact, this
corroborates the truthfulness of Scripture."

I'm sorry. How does such a thing "corrobrate" the truthfulness of
scripture? I can see where it might ne neutrl -- I can see where it
might be in opposition. But I can't think of any way it could
"corrobrate."

jb

On 4/8/09, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> I have often heard that something in the Bible was either said by an earlier
> culture or, as the present case, said by a non-biblical author. Examples of
> these are a universal flood, Garden of Eden, etc. Often these facts are
> used to undermine the authenticity of the Bible. However, the claim that the
> content of the Bible is truthful is not equivalent as claiming that no one
> else knew about these possible events or had written about them before the
> appearance of the accounts in the Bible. Surely, there are all sorts of
> cultures in-between the existence of the Garden of Eden and the writings of,
> say, the Old Testament. Therefore, I am never surprised to hear that some
> account in the Bible appeared in earlier writings. In fact, this
> corroborates the truthfulness of Scripture and does not mean by any means
> that such earlier accounts are merely copied in the Bible.
> Moorad
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Dick Fischer
> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:46 PM
> To: 'George Murphy'
> Cc: ASA
> 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<http://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<mailto:dickfischer@verizon.net>
> To: 'Dehler, Bernie'<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Cc: ASA<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
> 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<http://www.genesisproclaimed.org>
>
>
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.