What happened to the plants during Noah’s flood?

[lunamoth]

If the flood were a true story it would represent the greatest genocide ever known -- eight people supposedly survived from all of mankind -- and that is an example of "God's Mercy"?????? Very merciful god. Very kind. Very good.

What kind of story would you write if you lived in a subsistence agriculture society and experienced a massive flood that wiped out all but a few? Could you not see such a story eventually becoming a morality tale, trying to justify why so many were killed and just a few survived?

God is unchanging but the human experience of God changes with the times and conditions.

All the rest of humanity must have been "wicked" or "evil" (meaning they refused to worship the angry, murderous god) so they were killed -- including the "wicked" and "evil" infants and unborn.

I don't think I care much for even the idea of such a god.

Neither do I.

Scripture kills the spirit of scripture -- if one reads more than just a few favored passages.

Scripture read literally and one-dimensionally, with no taking in account the culture and time in which it was written, no consideration for the POV of the writers, with no understanding of scripture as literature and myth, certainly would not be a very good basis for faith.

 

[LeMaverick]

What kind of story would you write if you lived in a subsistence agriculture society and experienced a massive flood that wiped out all but a few? Could you not see such a story eventually becoming a morality tale, trying to justify why so many were killed and just a few survived?

God is unchanging but the human experience of God changes with the times and conditions.


Neither do I.

Scripture read literally and one-dimensionally, with no taking in account the culture and time in which it was written, no consideration for the POV of the writers, with no understanding of scripture as literature and myth, certainly would not be a very good basis for faith.

Isn't the bible credited with being "divinely inspired" and "the word of god" and "infallible"? If any of those is true, one cannot excuse its errors by citing it human origins.

It is not ethical to say one time that the bible is divinely inspired and say another time that it must be interpreted as the work of men of the times. Which is it?

I would say something close to what you have said. My statement would be, "Scripture does not make a very good basis for faith".

 

[Papersock]

Isn't the bible credited with being "divinely inspired" and "the word of god" and "infallible"? If any of those is true, one cannot excuse its errors by citing it human origins.

I have wondered why God didn't write the Bible himself, like he did the first 10 commandments.

 

[Tiberius]

Ever stopped to think that the word 'world' might not mean what modern people mean by it? I mean, do you think that the East Romans (Byzantines) had a galactic empire a la Star Wars simply because they called their Empire the Oekumene (Universe)?

Learn to approach the texts more sensibly and you might get more sensible answers. Of course, if all you want to do is ridicule, sticking with the most ridiculous, literalist view you can find probably serves your cause, but don't try and pretend that your criticism generalises in any way to the faith at large.

James

of course, such an interpretation would completely discount the grand Canyon as evidence for YEC, thus meaning the Earth must be billions of years old, yes?

Since Noah's birdy (a dove wasn't it?) flew off and then returned with a leaf from an olive vine I'm led to believe that God fibbed about the proportions of the flood or olives have good scuba gear.

The people who wrote the Bible didn't see plants as alive. This explains the problem quite nicely.

I've always assumed that Noah had plant life aboard the Ark. To me, it's not rocket science...Noah had to eat. I would wager that plant life was part of his diet.

And he took oak trees and poison ivy as well? To eat? This theory would mean that we'd only have edible plants around today - clearly not the case.

I don't think it unfeasible that the entire world was flooded. I have no trouble believing this on faith. And if it wasn't...that fact wouldn't really matter much in the long run.

If it's feasible, then where did all the water come from? And where did it go? Such knowledge would be of extreme importance for countries in Africa where drought has ravaged the land.

To answer the salt water question, and this is also a guess. Since it rained, and rain is always fresh water, not salt water, wouldn't there be more fresh water on earth than salt water during the flood. And when the water receeded, the fresh water which was at a higher altitude than the salt water, would have settled into the valleys and formed lake beds, to once again form fresh water lakes, or at the least, very low salt content lakes. Not to mention, could there have been a difference in the ocean temperature than the rain temperature. If the rain was warmer than the ocean, wouldn't the warm fresh water rain stay higher than the cold salt water which would prevent the two from fully mixing.

The salt content in the oceans would have spread out throughout the water volume.

The Holy Bible tells us that mankind will never be eliminated by another great flood....so no, there would be no reason to blame God...

What if it was a worldwide drought? It's easy to blame things like this on God, but that doesn't make it true.

And....?

And that means that these things are perfectly capable of happening without divine intervention.

Actually, the Holy Bible states that the entire earth's surface was covered in water...same as modern science is now also confirming...and yes...all at the hand of the creator God as revealed to us within the pages of the Holy Bible...

Show me one legitimate scientific source that shows scientific evidence that the entire surface of the Earth was covered with water.

Seems that the Biblical creation accounts have it right....thousands of years before modern science caught up to it...coincidence?....not hardly...

The Biblical creation accounts do not coincide with scientific accounts. The Bible did not get it right.

Who ever siad that it did...?

If the Biblical account is to be accepted, the water level had to be higher than Ararat in order for the ark to be deposited there.

Not only is it possible...but it was...this is part of planetary formation...

Water formation came from volcanic gases. it never covered the Earth entirely.

Isn't the more important question 'what does this story teach us?' It's a story of faith and restoration, of God's might and God's mercy.

Another example of literalism killing the spirit of the scripture.

It may not be one of the more comfortable characteristics of God found in the Bible, but 'them were different times' when this was written.

In other words it teaches that God is very willing to kill nearly all life on the planet.

Given the impossibilities in the story, there's no reason to see it as anything other than fiction. Anyone can make up a story to portray God as having whatever qualities they want. In other words, it teaches us what someone ages ago thought God was like. It tells us nothing about God himself.

 

[James the Persian]

of course, such an interpretation would completely discount the grand Canyon as evidence for YEC, thus meaning the Earth must be billions of years old, yes?

Of course. You weren't labouring under the assumption that I actually held to that ridiculous idea were you? The Church has never taught that one must hold to a YEC view. Even early Fathers didn't take Genesis literally. The idea of the Bible as the 'infallible word of God' which must be taken entirely literally is a post-Reformation one. Those of us who belong to churches that don't raise the Bible to the level of Christ (He is the Word of God) are well aware that it was written by fallible men.

James

 

[zenzero]

Friend LeMaverick,
It is surely a story however scientifically
By around 60,000-55,000 years ago, conditions around the world had become warmer, though still generally colder than today. The ice melted back partially,

Maybe at that time Noah was there but since it was partial and ddid not cover the whole earth, plants etc of those areas are not affected.

Either way it should not make any difference as each has to eventually reach the goal of merging with ONE.
Love & rgds

 

[Tiberius]

Of course. You weren't labouring under the assumption that I actually held to that ridiculous idea were you? The Church has never taught that one must hold to a YEC view. Even early Fathers didn't take Genesis literally. The idea of the Bible as the 'infallible word of God' which must be taken entirely literally is a post-Reformation one. Those of us who belong to churches that don't raise the Bible to the level of Christ (He is the Word of God) are well aware that it was written by fallible men.

James

Ah, but the Bible is the only source for Jesus. So how can you believe that Jesus is the word of God if the only thing telling you is the fallible Bible?

In any case, this indicates that YEC is not compatible with anything other than Biblical literalism.

 

[James the Persian]

Ah, but the Bible is the only source for Jesus. So how can you believe that Jesus is the word of God if the only thing telling you is the fallible Bible?

No it's not. We aren't all sola scriptura protestants, you know. If the Bible was the only source for Christ, how do suppose the Church existed prior to it being written and compiled? I get so sick of these parochial arguments from atheists who think their narrow view of Christianity (almost invariably some protestant version) is what Christianity is. If you seek to criticise something, it's always best to actually understand it first, don't you think? That, after all, is where most YECers go wrong.

In any case, this indicates that YEC is not compatible with anything other than Biblical literalism.

So? Who argued otherwise? The thing to note is not this undeniable and quite unremarkable fact but rather the more interesting truth that such narrow literalism is a relatively modern position and a minority one. Of course, those who wish to ridicule Christianity often find that it serves their cause to act as though this minority represents Christianity as a whole, but that would be either ignorance (which can be cured) or intellectual dishonesty.

James

 

[Aasimar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Ah, but the Bible is the only source for Jesus. So how can you believe that Jesus is the word of God if the only thing telling you is the fallible Bible?

No it's not. We aren't all sola scriptura protestants, you know. If the Bible was the only source for Christ, how do suppose the Church existed prior to it being written and compiled? I get so sick of these parochial arguments from atheists who think their narrow view of Christianity (almost invariably some protestant version) is what Christianity is. If you seek to criticise something, it's always best to actually understand it first, don't you think? That, after all, is where most YECers go wrong.
Quote:
In any case, this indicates that YEC is not compatible with anything other than Biblical literalism.
So? Who argued otherwise? The thing to note is not this undeniable and quite unremarkable fact but rather the more interesting truth that such narrow literalism is a relatively modern position and a minority one. Of course, those who wish to ridicule Christianity often find that it serves their cause to act as though this minority represents Christianity as a whole, but that would be either ignorance (which can be cured) or intellectual dishonesty.

James

James, what is your take on what happened to the plants during Noah's flood? Or if it was just a story, what was the lesson to be taught? Your interpretation, I know you get ****** at a lot of us because we have narrow views, literalism, we like to ridicule Christianity etc. etc. You say people act as though people like to ridicule Christianity through literalist interpretation as though it represents Christianity as a whole, is there anyting that represents Christianity as a whole, aside from Christ himself? Seriously, you say that if you seek to criticize something, you must understand it first. I do not understand Christianity in your view, please explain it too me. I do not mean to be rude or abrasive, but I feel I never get straight answers from you, I often just seem to have my questions dismissed as weak, narrow minded, uninformed, ignorant, or intellectually dishonest. You are absolutely right about me wanting to ridicule Christianity, though I can't speak for everyone, but this is not because I am cruel or get some kind of cheap thrill from it. I have what I think are legitimate concerns that these are dangerous things to teach. I just always kind of got the 3 billion people can't be wrong, feeling about christianity, which really doesn't justify it. Large groups of people have been wrong many many times.

 

[Tiberius]

No it's not. We aren't all sola scriptura protestants, you know. If the Bible was the only source for Christ, how do suppose the Church existed prior to it being written and compiled? I get so sick of these parochial arguments from atheists who think their narrow view of Christianity (almost invariably some protestant version) is what Christianity is. If you seek to criticise something, it's always best to actually understand it first, don't you think? That, after all, is where most YECers go wrong.

Care to show me some pre-biblical sources regarding jesus then?

In any case, there were stories passed down through oral tradition, before the books of the Bible were written, and it was these stories that were put in the Bible. Same stories though.

So? Who argued otherwise? The thing to note is not this undeniable and quite unremarkable fact but rather the more interesting truth that such narrow literalism is a relatively modern position and a minority one. Of course, those who wish to ridicule Christianity often find that it serves their cause to act as though this minority represents Christianity as a whole, but that would be either ignorance (which can be cured) or intellectual dishonesty.

I'm not saying anyone did.

Just pointing out that those who don't take the story of Noah literally lose an important piece of evidence for YEC.

 

[James the Persian]

James, what is your take on what happened to the plants during Noah's flood? Or if it was just a story, what was the lesson to be taught?

Read my first post in the thread and it should be obvious.

Your interpretation, I know you get ****** at a lot of us because we have narrow views, literalism, we like to ridicule Christianity etc. etc. You say people act as though people like to ridicule Christianity through literalist interpretation as though it represents Christianity as a whole, is there anyting that represents Christianity as a whole, aside from Christ himself?

No. And that's my point. I get annoyed when people with parochial views seek to ridicule Christianity because what they're actually doing is ridiculing the most fundamentalist Protestatism they can find. Generally the ridicule is well deserved fot those whom it fits - but that's not us, or the majority of Christians.

Seriously, you say that if you seek to criticize something, you must understand it first. I do not understand Christianity in your view, please explain it too me.

I'd rather you just stopped with the blanket judgements and ridicule and took each individual on their beliefs or, failing that, at least acted with a modicum of respect and tried to find out what different groups believed before tilting at straw men.

I do not mean to be rude or abrasive, but I feel I never get straight answers from you, I often just seem to have my questions dismissed as weak, narrow minded, uninformed, ignorant, or intellectually dishonest.

You have got to be joking. I've only made a couple of replies to your posts and they've all been straight. You even mentioned how unusually straight my answer to you was. Are you perhaps thinking of someone else?

You are absolutely right about me wanting to ridicule Christianity, though I can't speak for everyone, but this is not because I am cruel or get some kind of cheap thrill from it. I have what I think are legitimate concerns that these are dangerous things to teach.

Firstly if you really think you have a legitimate concern, ridicule is not the way to address it. Secondly, exactly what are these dangerous things that you think Christianity teaches? Let's see if it's Christianity, or narrow minded fundamentalist Protestants you have issue with. I'm almost willing to put money on the latter.

I just always kind of got the 3 billion people can't be wrong, feeling about christianity, which really doesn't justify it. Large groups of people have been wrong many many times.

Well you've certainly never got that from me. I'm well aware of how larger groups can go wrong - given the way we view the RCC and the fact that it's four times our size, you'd have to be a rather ignorant Orthodox Christian not to see that numerical arguments of that type are worthless.

James

 

[Aasimar]

The Holy Scriptures are highly regarded by the Orthodox Church. Their importance is expressed in the fact that a portion of the Bible is read at every service of Worship. The Orthodox Church, which sees itself as the guardian and interpreter of the Scriptures, believes that the books of the Bible are a valuable witness to God's revelation. The Old Testament is a collection of forty-nine books of various literary style which expresses God's revelation to the ancient Israelites. The Orthodox Church regards the Old Testament to be a preparation for the coming of Christ and believes that it should be read in light of His revelation.
The New Testament is centered upon the person and work of Jesus Christ and the out pouring of the Holy Spirit in the early Church. The four Gospels are an account of Christ's life and teaching centering upon His Death and Resurrection. the twenty one epistles and the Acts of the Apostles are devoted to the Christian life and the development of the early Church. The Book of Revelation is a very symbolic text which looks to the return of Christ. The New Testament, especially the Gospels, is very important to Orthodoxy because here is found a written witness to the perfect revelation of God in the Incarnation of the Son of God, in the person of Jesus Christ.

James, is the a correct view of your beliefs about the bible, I found this information on the St. Mary's Romanian Orthodox Church website.

s Orthodoxy has avoided any tendency to restrict the vision of God's revelation to only one avenue of its life, the Church has also avoided the systematic or extensive definition of its Faith. Orthodoxy affirms that the Christian Faith expresses and points to the gracious and mysterious relationship between God and humanity. God became man in the person of Jesus Christ not to institute a new philosophy or code of conduct, but primarily to bestow upon us "new life" in the Holy Trinity. This reality, which is manifest in the Church, cannot be wholly captured in language, formulas, or definitions. The content of the Faith is not opposed to reason, but is often beyond the bounds of reason, as are many of the important realities of life. Orthodoxy recognizes the supreme majesty of God, as well as the limitations of the human mind. The Church is content to accept the element of mystery in its approach to God.

Please verify if you believe these statements are true so I have some baseboard of discussion to spring from, thanks

Also, is this kinda a standard blurb about the church, it seemed written in that format http://www.stmaryro.org/en/default.asp?contentid=704 which would help me understand where it is your thoughts come from.

 

[James the Persian]

James, is the a correct view of your beliefs about the bible, I found this information on the St. Mary's Romanian Orthodox Church website.

Seems about right, though I'd question the number of OT books. I count 51 including Prayer of Manessah and 4 Maccabees (though it may be that these two were excluded from the numbering because they are usually in an appendix). I'd also suggest that whilst it's clear to me that the author intends that you understand the Bible as a human record of the revelation of God (and hence not the infallible word of God Himself, as if it was Divine dictation), it possibly deserves repeating that that is the way we view it.

Please verify if you believe these statements are true so I have some baseboard of discussion to spring from, thanks

There's nothing wrong with this at all. We see the sort of desire to codify and categorise everything that results in documents like the catechism of the RCC as generally a pretty bad idea. I think that this is one of the reasons we have far fewer dogmas than the RCC and also why we tend to allow for a range of personal beliefs on subjects such as this one - it really doesn't affect the faith at all how widespread the flood was or how long it took to create the earth and if you want to believe in YEC you can (some do) but if you want to reject the idea, you can do that too. Very many, including myself, do precisely that.

Also, is this kinda a standard blurb about the church, it seemed written in that format http://www.stmaryro.org/en/default.asp?contentid=704 which would help me understand where it is your thoughts come from.

It's nothing I've read before and we don't really tend to have standard writings like that, but the contents seem fairly standard, although they barely scratch the surface. If you really want to understand our faith you'd have to read something considerably more in depth than that.


James

 

[Aasimar]

If you really want to understand our faith you'd have to read something considerably more in depth than that.

Know of anywhere I can do that? Aside from a church of course

 

[James the Persian]

Know of anywhere I can do that? Aside from a church of course

I can suggest some books, certainly. The first two that spring to mind are The Orthodox Church (which takes a more historical view) and the The Orthodox Way (which is more theological) both by Bishop Kallistos Ware (though you'll almost certainly find The Orthodox Church under his pre-monastic name of Timothy as he was still a layman when he wrote it). They make a very good introduction to the faith, though don't expect that you'll understand everything by reading them - I first began enquiring back '95 and have been Orthodox officially for about 5 years and I'm constantly learning new things.

You can find excerpts from The Orthodox Church online here:
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm

The whole of that site is good, actually, with many articles on different aspects of the faith. As for the attitude to creationism brought up in this thread, you might be interested in this one:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/evolution_kuraev.htm

James

 

[LeMaverick]

Maybe at that time Noah was there but since it was partial and ddid not cover the whole earth, plants etc of those areas are not affected.

Why is there continual reference to a "partial Earth flood" when, according to biblical accounts the lord stated an intention to kill all living things on the Earth? Isn't that "kill all living things" from the Christian bible?

Wouldn't the supposed creator of the Earth realize whether or not it was covered by water? Why are we limited to thinking about what biblical authors might have thought when they were supposedly "divinely inspired".

If biblical authors (whoever they were) were not directed by god, how can the bible be regarded as anything more than a fictional work of men?

 

[Runlikethewind]

Why is there continual reference to a "partial Earth flood" when, according to biblical accounts the lord stated an intention to kill all living things on the Earth? Isn't that "kill all living things" from the Christian bible?

That "kill all living things" comes from Hebrew scripture which is part of the Christian Bible and is understood in light of Christ by Christians but it is Hebrew in origin. And the point that some are trying to express in the continual reference to the partial flood is that the 'on the earth' part may be a slight mistranslation referring not to the entire earth as we know it but only to the entire earth as the author would have known it or to some local area. So the point is that a more literal translation under modern conceptions of the earth might read something to the effect that the LORD's intention was to kill all living things in a large localized geographic area. And one has to realize that all living things are going to die anyway and it is God who is ultimately responsible for bringing into life and ending the life of all living things. So to think that because God desired to kill all living things is somehow evidence that God is bad doesn't necessarily work because in the grand scheme of things God does kill all living things, and I mean absolutely every living thing that ever was or ever will be.

Wouldn't the supposed creator of the Earth realize whether or not it was covered by water? Why are we limited to thinking about what biblical authors might have thought when they were supposedly "divinely inspired".

If biblical authors (whoever they were) were not directed by god, how can the bible be regarded as anything more than a fictional work of men?

It seems you are confused about the difference between inspired and dictated. The 'supposed' creator of the Earth did realize whether of not it was covered water. If the bible was dictated then it would follow that the author would have also known this fact too and we would have to take his words as the literal truth. Most believe that the Bible is inspired and not dictated. Inspired means that God knew about the extent of the flood while the author did not. The author was inspired to write down the story or account of a massive flood and of the survivors of that event. Therefore one does not have to conclude that God directed or dictated the writing of scripture to believe that it contains divine truths, communicated in fallible ways by fallible men.

 

[LeMaverick]

That "kill all living things" comes from Hebrew scripture which is part of the Christian Bible and is understood in light of Christ by Christians but it is Hebrew in origin. And the point that some are trying to express in the continual reference to the partial flood is that the 'on the earth' part may be a slight mistranslation referring not to the entire earth as we know it but only to the entire earth as the author would have known it or to some local area. So the point is that a more literal translation under modern conceptions of the earth might read something to the effect that the LORD's intention was to kill all living things in a large localized geographic area. And one has to realize that all living things are going to die anyway and it is God who is ultimately responsible for bringing into life and ending the life of all living things. So to think that because God desired to kill all living things is somehow evidence that God is bad doesn't necessarily work because in the grand scheme of things God does kill all living things, and I mean absolutely every living thing that ever was or ever will be.

It seems you are confused about the difference between inspired and dictated. The 'supposed' creator of the Earth did realize whether of not it was covered water. If the bible was dictated then it would follow that the author would have also known this fact too and we would have to take his words as the literal truth. Most believe that the Bible is inspired and not dictated. Inspired means that God knew about the extent of the flood while the author did not. The author was inspired to write down the story or account of a massive flood and of the survivors of that event. Therefore one does not have to conclude that God directed or dictated the writing of scripture to believe that it contains divine truths, communicated in fallible ways by fallible men.

Okay, the bible was inspired but not dictated, it was written by fallible men in fallible ways, the authors did not know what god knows and could not therefore transmit gods words or wishes.

Where does that leave the bible?

I have suggested previously that it is a fictional work by men who had a personal agenda and is in no way "the inspired word of god". It is not even good fiction.

If the bible is not the word of god, where does that leave Christianity?

I have suggested previously that it is a belief system based on fables, falsehoods and emotions; that there is no evidence to support its claims (or even that its major characters existed in reality); and that it (along with other religion) is a human invention to address the fear of death (by providing hope for an "afterlife") and yielding influence and income to those who claim special knowledge of threatening invisible beings (who determine one's welfare in the supposed afterlife).

 

[Runlikethewind]

Okay, the bible was inspired but not dictated, it was written by fallible men in fallible ways, the authors did not know what god knows and could not therefore transmit gods words or wishes.

It does follow that since the authors did not know God's words that they could not transmit God's words. It does not follow that they could not transmit God's wishes. This is what is meant by the Bible being inspired, the general message of God is contained in inspired text.

Where does that leave the bible?

The Bible is a tool that can be used to discover the message of God.

I have suggested previously that it is a fictional work by men who had a personal agenda and is in no way "the inspired word of god". It is not even good fiction.

If the bible is not the word of god, where does that leave Christianity?

If the Bible is inspired and not dictated then such a claim is an unprovable claim. One takes it, as well as most questions regarding God, on faith. Faith is the belief not in the unproven but belief in the unprovable. If one could prove that God exists then belief in God would be a matter of objective knowledge and not of faith. This would change the entire dynamics of religion and I don't think that is possible. I think that it is inherently unprovable. So one must believe the unprovable claim that the Bible is inspired and use reason and analysis to determine what God's message is.

I have suggested previously that it is a belief system based on fables, falsehoods and emotions; that there is no evidence to support its claims (or even that its major characters existed in reality); and that it (along with other religion) is a human invention to address the fear of death (by providing hope for an "afterlife") and yielding influence and income to those who claim special knowledge of threatening invisible beings (who determine one's welfare in the supposed afterlife).

I agree to a certain extent that the evidence to support claims of faith is limited if not totally non-existent. That is the nature of faith belief in the unprovable, not the unproven but the unprovable. Since it is unprovable one is free to believe, as you do, that it is an invention. Since it is unprovable there is no way to determine whether someone has received special knowledge of any kind or not. I think I would take issue on your claim that there is no evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus (which I am assuming is what you are making reference to in red) but that is a whole different topic and would take us far from the question at hand. And so to tie it all back to the question at hand if one sees the flood story as inspired and not dictated then the message that God wishes to communicate through the story can be discovered regardless of whether the flood was a worldwide or only local event. And I might also add that the discovery of that message, in my opinion as a Catholic, falls generally to the teaching Magisterium and not the average faithful who wants to interpret it as being literal truth.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sandy,

I agree that if there had been a flood as described in biblical tales most, if not all, land plants must have died a few thousand years ago. However, I observe that there are abundant plants now on all continents and at least most islands. How can that be possible given the time constraints assumed in literal interpretation of the bible?

Best guess...they grew back. Any more questions?