Islam belief, Noah, the Great Flood and Science. Coherent or contradictory?

[CG Didymus]

If you believe God was telling us about literal history, of course. But God is not a liar. God reveals Himself in accordance with our capacity, not His. Clearly our capacity changed once Galileo brought into question the Christian cosmology of his day.

Let me un-dichotomize it again. There is God literally doing a flood to kill all the evil people and most of all the animals. Symbolic: The water stands for this. The 950 years is really that. And however you want to interpret the rest of the story. But... why can't it be a story made up by a man? Maybe he heard about a flood story from some other civilization? Like... let's say the Gilgamesh story. Or, the story in the Hopi Sacred Writings. And, he thought... "you know, our people need a story like that. We need a God that created us and made us special. But... since we keep doing bad things, let me write a story to get people to fear God and get them to do what is right. Hmmm? How can I get them to fear God?" And the rest is history... symbolic history... or mythological based on some history... or who knows what.

In that story God can walk on Earth and talked to his creation. Prophets can fly in fiery chariots. Walls of cities can tumble. Giants can be killed by a stone from a sling shot. Long hair can give a mighty warrior his strength. A dying and rising God/man can ascend into heaven.

Or... you've got a lot things to make sense out of with your "symbolic" interpretations. Hmmm? David is symbolic of the weak and downtrodden. Goliath is symbolic of the powerful, evil tyrants. Hmmm? The small stone is the Word of truth... that in the hands of the weak and downtrodden can defeat the mighty. Yes, yes, it does work! Yeah, let me try Samson next... Long hair? What can I make of that? Hmmm? This might take awhile.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ah, but that has been one of my arguments/questions... Did the writers of those stories know they were allegorical or did they think they were writing "historical" truths? But who knows when the flood story got written down? Was it passed down from generation to generation before someone wrote it down? I would imagine so. But the big thing for me is... was it written down as if true and meant to be believed as true?

This is "God's" Word to those people. They didn't have modern science to disprove it back then, so why would they doubt it?. So my argument has been that I don't think the writer meant it as a "symbolic" story, but he meant it as a factual story. But, if that is the case, then the writer was wrong, and the story probably didn't come from God but from a man... and then he ascribed it to God, or at least said that he was inspired by God.

It does not matter whether those who wrote at the time considered it true revealed or inspired by God, or considered symbolic. Some of the Church Fathers considered it both. The problem is that there is virtually no possible way that it is true by the overwhelming evidence.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Pentateuch was compiled, edited, redacted, and written based on a mix of older sources. It is virtually impossible that the Noah flood and the Creation story as written we literal accurate historical records.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science?
Science capable of consideration?

Ancient scripture IS evidence, in and of itself. It might not be enough to bring in a positive decision, but it IS evidence which people can take in to consideration.

Actually no, scripture is not evidence, neither is ancient literature from many ancient cultures.

And the bible is full of evidence. This argues neither for nor against any conclusions, it simply is evidence.

No, it is testimony of what some believe, and like other ancient writings without objective verifiable archaeological and geologic evidence.

Just because ancient writing described supernatural creatures and events doe not make those writings as evidence. The archaeological and geologic evidence is overwhelming; there was no such Noah's flood.

 

[shunyadragon]

Don't sound as if you know what's in the mind of people who passed away thousand years ago. It's not scientific!

No it is not scientific, but the archaeological and geologic objective verifiable evidence is evidence, and there is sufficient evidence to determine there was no such flood.

 

[CG Didymus]

Except, the details in Sumerian isn’t complete, because texts on the flood are largely fragments, and only bits can be glimpse, but...

...BUT, if the Akkadian/Old Babylonian versions to go by, it give us indication it is river flood, not a global flood. It doesn’t say it cover all the mountains.

So the Sumerian version don’t collaborate with Genesis.

Seriously, I have already read all the Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian creation and flood stories, including different recensions of the Sumerian King List.

I know that there are some similarities between the original Mesopotamian myths and Genesis, but there are enough differences to show where the Hebrew version departed from the original story.

If anything, the Genesis version is more distorted and exaggerated than the original version.

Key word "exaggerated". Baha'is say the story is true, but was meant by God to be taken as symbolic. But, for me, I have no problem with some religious people writing some religious mythology...Taking stories from other people and making them their own, with their own twist to it, and with their own God at the forefront... in other words, exaggerate.

But definitely, I don't get the Baha'i symbolic interpretation. For me, that would mean that God told the scribes to write about a flood that didn't really happen. But then, not tell them that it didn't happen. That would mean that God let people for hundreds of years believe that a flood really took place. And finally, after thousands of years, when Baha'u'llah came, then God let it be known that there never was a "literal" flood, but that he only meant the story in a metaphorical way. No, I'm okay with people writing about their God and the things that God did and will do in a mythological way. Which I guess is kind of symbolic, just not like the Baha'i meaning of "symbolic".

 

[shunyadragon]

Key word "exaggerated". Baha'is say the story is true, but was meant by God to be taken as symbolic. But, for me, I have no problem with some religious people writing some religious mythology...Taking stories from other people and making them their own, with their own twist to it, and with their own God at the forefront... in other words, exaggerate.

But definitely, I don't get the Baha'i symbolic interpretation. For me, that would mean that God told the scribes to write about a flood that didn't really happen. But then, not tell them that it didn't happen. That would mean that God let people for hundreds of years believe that a flood really took place. And finally, after thousands of years, when Baha'u'llah came, then God let it be known that there never was a "literal" flood, but that he only meant the story in a metaphorical way. No, I'm okay with people writing about their God and the things that God did and will do in a mythological way. Which I guess is kind of symbolic, just not like the Baha'i meaning of "symbolic".

The Baha'i writings do not claim the Noah's flood is literally true.

 

[CG Didymus]

Actually no, scripture is not evidence, neither is ancient literature from many ancient cultures.



No, it is testimony of what some believe, and like other ancient writings without objective verifiable archaeological and geologic evidence.

Just because ancient writing described supernatural creatures and events doe not make those writings as evidence. The archaeological and geologic evidence is overwhelming; there was no such Noah's flood.

Yet, we trust it for telling us the truth about God?

 

[CG Didymus]

The Baha'i writings do not claim the Noah's flood is literally true.

What I meant is that some Baha'is have said things in the Bible are "true" but in a symbolic way, not a literal way. Is that more like what a Baha'i believes?

 

[CG Didymus]

Metaphorically, the answer to everything.

I just got to page 6 and I had 14 of my own posts. Can't wait to see what is on page 7. Could it be the reincarnation of my posts all over again?

 

[CG Didymus]

It does not matter whether those who wrote at the time considered it true revealed or inspired by God, or considered symbolic. Some of the Church Fathers considered it both. The problem is that there is virtually no possible way that it is true by the overwhelming evidence.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Pentateuch was compiled, edited, redacted, and written based on a mix of older sources. It is virtually impossible that the Noah flood and the Creation story as written we literal accurate historical records.

Sounds good to me. Thanks

 

[Unguru]

Or... you've got a lot things to make sense out of with your "symbolic" interpretations. Hmmm? David is symbolic of the weak and downtrodden. Goliath is symbolic of the powerful, evil tyrants. Hmmm? The small stone is the Word of truth... that in the hands of the weak and downtrodden can defeat the mighty. Yes, yes, it does work! Yeah, let me try Samson next... Long hair? What can I make of that? Hmmm? This might take awhile.

Although I do agree with your idea against revisionism, you don't seem to know the difference between the symbolic, metaphorical and allegorical. These words don't mean the same thing.
Your quoted post is about allegory, not the symbolic.

 

[oldbadger]

Actually no, scripture is not evidence, neither is ancient literature from many ancient cultures.

We were talking about the bible. Let's stick to the bible.
Scripture is the word used for what is shown in the bible. But much of what is shown in the bible is a witness account, and therefore it has value as evidence. The fact that it is old evidence and the writer long deceased affects its value but it is EVIDENCE.

No, it is testimony of what some believe, and like other ancient writings without objective verifiable archaeological and geologic evidence.

The word TESTIMONY means a kind of EVIDENCE. By all means seek verification, but a seeker might do better to search for any CORROBORATION to support statements made by the deceased.
In the case of the flood story I think that we all know that evidence for great floods exists in the Mid-East area where Noah lived. I don't see any problem with reports of the flood covering everywhere.
And so..... the 'flood covered the world' is as true as a French person describing a vehicle gridlock as affecting 'Tout le Monde'! Or would you call him a liar and demand geological/photographic evidence for the car-jam?

Just because ancient writing described supernatural creatures and events doe not make those writings as evidence. The archaeological and geologic evidence is overwhelming; there was no such Noah's flood.

That's a contradiction, right there...... if the evidence was overwhelming then there would be lots of it. I think you're saying that there is none. But in fact we know that there is evidence for really big floods there..... and mostly everywhere else, actually, just not all at the same time.

 

[oldbadger]

Don't you think its a little strange that people could have lived more than 8 X longer than the oldest people today. I doubt if we would get that amount of change from a diet and I am a medical doctor which adds to my scepticism of your theory.

Don't laugh.......... I said 'Do not laugh'........... but if extraterrestrials were involved with humans 'back in the day' then anything is possible. Please........ stop shaking like that or you'll spill your drink......... Elijah did get taken up to heaven in a 'chariot of fire' after all....
Oh, alright....... laughter is good for you.

But old folks today have lived four or five times longer than the average ages of people in some parts of the world.

 

[oldbadger]

Although I do agree with your idea against revisionism, you don't seem to know the difference between the symbolic, metaphorical and allegorical.

OK........... but it would have helped if you could have shown the different definitions. Never mind...... I have a dictionary.....

These words don't mean the same thing.

True....

Your quoted post is about allegory, not the symbolic.

Ah...... but is that just your opinion?

 

[Unguru]

OK........... but it would have helped if you could have shown the different definitions. Never mind...... I have a dictionary.....


True....


Ah...... but is that just your opinion?

No, do a process of elimination. Here's his quote with the misapplied word left empty:

Or... you've got a lot things to make sense out of with your "[Word]" interpretations. Hmmm? David is [Word] of the weak and downtrodden. Goliath is [Word] of the powerful, evil tyrants. Hmmm? The small stone is the Word of truth... that in the hands of the weak and downtrodden can defeat the mighty. Yes, yes, it does work! Yeah, let me try Samson next... Long hair? What can I make of that? Hmmm? This might take awhile.

Now, obviously he rules out these people he is referring to existed, which rules out (in his opinion) it being a historical telling; Yet they represent straightforward concepts to him (which rules out the symbolic - which represents something other than the symbol, something intangible).
Now with what we have left, if there is a "moral of the story" that the story/myth (in his opinion) represents - then it would be an allegory; But if there isn't one and they represent specific ideas, then these people he is referring to would be metaphors for those ideas...which seems to be the case for him. There.

Now his position (corrected) is that they are metaphors, but I don't share that position on the matter.

 

[oldbadger]

What if we reincarnate as Baha'is... What would that mean? Of course, in a metaphorical way. Since there is no such thing as reincarnation.

Ah ha! I can think of other incarnations that I would prefer. Could I have a better physique next time, please? My Abs and Pecs are rubbish.

How so many great brains of the world could argue over what some folks wrote about a great flood is surprising.

Imagine asking a French person about the massive gridlock that hindered their motorway journey last week, and when they start shouting about it covering 'Tout le Monde!' I could call the geezer a bleedin' liar 'cos on that same day I took my Missus to work in Herne Bay without any trouble.

Symbol.... Metaphor..... Allegory......

 

[oldbadger]

No, do a process of elimination. Here's his quote with the misapplied word left empty:

Now, obviously he rules out these people he is referring to existed, which rules out (in his opinion) it being a historical telling; Yet they represent straightforward concepts to him (which rules out the symbolic - which represents something other than the symbol, something intangible).
Now with what we have left, if there is a "moral of the story" that the story/myth (in his opinion) represents - then it would be an allegory; But if there isn't one and they represent specific ideas, then these people he is referring to would be metaphors for those ideas...which seems to be the case for him. There.

Now his position (corrected) is that they are metaphors, but I don't share that position on the matter.

OK.......... I'm cool with your opinion.... no probs.

You mentioned, or that member mentioned David's fight with Goliath. ....:-
David is [Word] of the weak and downtrodden. Goliath is [Word] of the powerful, evil tyrants. Hmmm? The small stone is the Word of truth... that in the hands of the weak and downtrodden can defeat the mighty. Yes, yes, it does work!

For what it's worth I take the above fight as a real event. A small young person selected the right stone and slung it in to a giant's head, knocking him unconscious for long enough to kill the giant. No need for any further complication.

But I have used a sling all my days from 13yrs up until now, and twenty years ago I could put a stone through a door panel at 30 yards without trouble. I watch the news about Gaza and see film of young people with extra long (distance) slings slinging rocks hundreds of yards in to groups of Israeli soldiers and I know what these can do.

I think that David was of the tribe of Benjamin...... the shepherds....... maybe someone can confirm or correct..... those guys were the deadliest with the sling, I believe.

Oh yes..... David stoned that giant alright...... no probs. No Metaphor, Symbol or Allegory required.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You are way off. To be "literal", it would have to be 1000 years. Do you understand the error of your ways? If it literally feels like 950 years, it can't feel like 1000 years at the same time.

I think you are have PTSD from debating with the Baha’is for too long.

 

[Unguru]

Islam is a religion that emerged out of the 7th century, promoted slavery, treated woman as property and parallels Christianity in violence perpetrated against people who thought differently. The Caliphates which ruled for over 1200 years in recent times inspired ISIS. In many places people risk punishment through apostasy laws should they wish to convert to another religion. So although Baha’is believe Muhammad was a Messenger of God and the Quran is God’s word, we see Islam as essentially corrupted.

Well, there goes "unity of religion", oh well. I guess I'll catch it again as the next prophet comes along and abrogates Baha'u'llah's satire religion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Excuse me if this has already been said by someone... I'm only on page 4 and trying to catch up. But... what are Scientologists? Sensible, spiritual people that have the answers for today's world or "nut jobs"? "Christian" TV evangelists that lay hands on people and tell them that they will be healed of cancer? Or, those Christians that handle rattlesnakes. Or, a "Christian" evangelist that tells his people to drink poisoned Koolaid? Are they following God? Or... are they "nut jobs"? Sometimes, some people are nut jobs and just using religion. Somebody better call them out.

But, then again, I heard a religious person say of people in other religions that they were following superstitious traditions and not God. Is that okay to say that? Or, is it better to just let them go on believing what they believe even though it is not the truth?

We have a couple of Jews on our interfaith council who have joined the church of Scientology. It’s been a challenge for some of us. I don’t believe Ron Hubbard was any kind of prophet or enlightened person. There wasn’t a worldwide flood. People don’t live to 950 years of age. Reincarnation is a myth. There was no resurrection of Christ. There’s no Satan. Muhammad didn’t split the moon in two. But if people want to believe some or all of these, that is their right. We are entitled to believe as we believe. But when Muslims, Christians and Hindu fundamentalists promote religious bigotry that’s where the line needs to be drawn. When one religious adherent promotes hatred, intolerance against another...