WLC and Evolution derail

[whag]

The estimates of the survival after the Toba eruption are estimates. It could have been several thousand several tens of thousands. Whag is correct, within a few thousand years the human population was recovering and spread around the African and Eurasian continents.

There is the interesting question whether Home Erectus would be considered human in your view, before they were mixed with and replaced by Homo sapiens populations.

Still no geologic evidence of any sort of flood at any time in the past 100,000 years that would qualify for any sort of "universal flood."

Also, consider the age that rogue is proposing. These are stone age men and women struggling to survive in a harsh environment. I highly doubt that their every waking thought was "evil continually." They had to cooperate with each other to make it to Australia and migrate to Eurasia. How demeaning of us it is to conclude all were continuously plotting evil.

Genesis 6:5
"Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Also, are we to conclude there was much merriment during these perilous times? Jesus says they were drinking and feasting, which couldn't be true if this happened in the stone age. The problem of bringing the story that far back is that it's hard to survive extreme journeys while getting engorged and drunk.

Matthew 24:37
"36No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark."

[Tassman]

Also, consider the age that rogue is proposing. These are stone age men and women struggling to survive in a harsh environment. I highly doubt that their every waking thought was "evil continually." They had to cooperate with each other to make it to Australia and migrate to Eurasia. How demeaning of us it is to conclude all were continuously plotting evil.

Genesis 6:5
"Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Also, are we to conclude there was much merriment during these perilous times? Jesus says they were drinking and feasting, which couldn't be true if this happened in the stone age. The problem of bringing the story that far back is that it's hard to survive extreme journeys while getting engorged and drunk.

Matthew 24:37
"36No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark."

As you imply, the authors of Genesis had no idea of the perils of eking out an existence for early Homo sapiens and their Neanderthal cousins during the c.3 million years of the Stone Age. The authors seemed to view early man as being just like themselves, i.e. wickedly feasting and drinking and thus deserving of being wiped out by a world-wide flood, along with all the poor animals.

This alone relegates Noah’s Flood to the status of a folk tale.

[whag]

Is the flood a theologically necessary event to believe in? If so, why?

[Tassman]

Is the flood a theologically necessary event to believe in? If so, why?

Well, I guess it's part of the general theme that since the Fall of Man humans are inherently bad and in need of redemption. Cue Jesus!

[whag]

Well, I guess it's part of the general theme that since the Fall of Man humans are inherently bad and in need of redemption. Cue Jesus!

That's not what I'm getting at, and I don't want to mock. I imagine some Christians have concluded it's too problematic an event to assume it happened literally or universally. Do only liberal Christians regard it as purely figurative? Why add the Noah deluge belief on top of the already burdensome basic belief requirement of Christianity? I don't understand why the Noahic covenent is important.

[whag]

That's not what I'm getting at, and I don't want to mock. I imagine some Christians have concluded it's too problematic an event to assume it happened literally or universally. Do only liberal Christians regard it as purely figurative? Why add the Noah deluge belief on top of the already burdensome basic belief requirement of Christianity? I don't understand why the Noahic covenent is important.

I wish to strike burdensome from the above question. Jesus says his yoke is easy and his burden light. What I meant to say was why is it necessary to add burdens like the flood to the basic belief requirement of Christianity.

[Tassman]

That's not what I'm getting at, and I don't want to mock. I imagine some Christians have concluded it's too problematic an event to assume it happened literally or universally. Do only liberal Christians regard it as purely figurative? Why add the Noah deluge belief on top of the already burdensome basic belief requirement of Christianity? I don't understand why the Noahic covenent is important.

As I said, it’s important because it’s all of a piece with Man’s sin and God’s redemption...it’s a common theme throughout the bible, God takes care of you if you love and obey him, and destroys you if you don’t.

Noah, like Jesus, was a blameless, righteous man and the only true follower of God left on earth. Hence he was “saved” while the wicked were destroyed.

As for what’s literally true in scripture and what’s merely metaphorical, as the Noah’s Ark story clearly is, this is a major problem for Christian fundamentalists. E.g. was Adam, who brought sin into the world merely figurative, which is likely, whilst Jesus who brought about the Atonement via miracles and the resurrection literally true?

[shunyadragon]

As I said, it’s important because it’s all of a piece with Man’s sin and God’s redemption...it’s a common theme throughout the bible, God takes care of you if you love and obey him, and destroys you if you don’t.

Noah, like Jesus, was a blameless, righteous man and the only true follower of God left on earth. Hence he was “saved” while the wicked were destroyed.

As for what’s literally true in scripture and what’s merely metaphorical, as the Noah’s Ark story clearly is, this is a major problem for Christian fundamentalists. E.g. was Adam, who brought sin into the world merely figurative, which is likely, whilst Jesus who brought about the Atonement via miracles and the resurrection literally true?

I believe it is a problem in a wide range of variation of interpretations of Genesis not just fundamentalism, and the concept of 'salvation' in different churches and among Theologians. Pragmatism and manipulation of selfish logic rules among the more liberal believers, and those trying to find a more scriptural reasonable explanation, trying desperately to justify the doctrines and dogmas of salvation with various interpretations of scripture to force fit these beliefs into the modern world. They are neglecting the fact that authors and editors of the NT, and the majority of the church fathers formulated the doctrines and dogma of salvation, based on a literal understanding of Genesis. The fundamentalist understanding remains the most honest, and faithful interpretation of scripture without the manipulative jerrymandering it to make it fit the knowledge of the modern world.

This is also true of Judaism today, where the development of 'Midrash' develops interpretations that pragmatically suit their cultural world in recent history.

[Tassman]

I believe it is a problem in a wide range of variation of interpretations of Genesis not just fundamentalism, and the concept of 'salvation' in different churches and among Theologians. Pragmatism and manipulation of selfish logic rules among the more liberal believers, and those trying to find a more scriptural reasonable explanation, trying desperately to justify the doctrines and dogmas of salvation with various interpretations of scripture to force fit these beliefs into the modern world. They are neglecting the fact that authors and editors of the NT, and the majority of the church fathers formulated the doctrines and dogma of salvation, based on a literal understanding of Genesis. The fundamentalist understanding remains the most honest, and faithful interpretation of scripture without the manipulative jerrymandering it to make it fit the knowledge of the modern world.

This is also true of Judaism today, where the development of 'Midrash' develops interpretations that pragmatically suit their cultural world in recent history.

I agree that the fundamentalist understanding of Genesis remains the most consistent interpretation of scripture, but this consistency comes at great cost. Namely, ignoring the scientifically verified facts of how the universe came into being and how life evolved on earth.

The rejection of these facts in favour of mythical explanations, unfortunately, results in the propagation of ignorance and is particularly damaging to innocent young minds that have the right to expect their parents and authority figures to tell them the truth.