Can the story of Noah be literally true?

On this we can agree!

I don’t see the central issue here as flood accounts in the ancient world, per se. Maybe I got off track. I thought we were exploring whether or not the account of the flood in the bible was historically feasible.

I don’t know if I should respond to you like this, three times in a row. Can we message each other?

It pleased the Father that all His fullness dwelt in the Son.
Jesus was full of the Holy Spirit. He said the words that He spoke were not His but the Father’s. He only did and said what He saw the Father doing and saying. He was the exact representation of the Father.
The Father said, Matt 17:5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

Now will a puny creature tell the Father that His son was wrong? Not if he has any wisdom.

Good point. He wasn’t omnipresent, either. Yet, even devout Jews worshipped him as their messiah. God is more than the “omnis”. He is who He is. Whether in the form of a tiny baby or bleeding to death as an accused criminal or moving through walls or taken to heaven by a couple of angels or resisting Mary’s affection, there He is. No one like him who ever lived. No one spoke like He did, ever, in all of history–no one. Not even close.
“I have called you my friends…”

(I think He knew who touched him. Afterall, He was being mobbed but someone needed the healing force within him and she tapped into it and He felt it flow out of his body. That He knew, no doubt.)

I’m not sure what the fuss is about correcting Jesus on scientific issues.

When the Devil took Jesus up to a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms or the world, did Jesus correct him saying “These are not all the kingdom of the world, the earth isn’t flat”?

No Jesus, the angels won’t go to the four corners of the earth. An oblate spheroid doesn’t have corners.

No Jesus, the mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Not even close.

No Jesus, the sun doesn’t exactly rise. The earth rotates as it revolves around the sun.

No Jesus, the moon doesn’t give off light. It reflects sunlight.

No Jesus, heaven is not in the clouds which are just the result of air riding and water vapor condensing. But we will still look for your coming from there when you return.

No Jesus, hell is not in the middle of the earth. There is just iron and nickel in there though it is probably hot enough to qualify.

No Jesus, Jonah was not 3 days in the belly of a whale either. Their esophagus’s aren’t big enough to swallow a human and even if we assume it was a sperm whale which theoretically could swallow a human, he would have even crushed by one of the chambered stomachs, not to mention suffocating.

No Jesus, God doesn’t make it rain each time opening the heavens. Differential heating, global circulation patterns, and local topography influence that…

It’s clear that even by your own scriptural metric, Jesus was not omnipotent. I have no need to try to protect him from these types of errors or claim he was just accommodating his audience at the time. Theses are not moral issues. There we can defer to the life and teachings of one without sin and very much in tune with the Father.

Vinnie

The text makes it clear Jesus not know who did it. Mark gives away his narrative hand here. Jesus is pressed in on all sides (even the disciples think his question is silly as many people are touching Jesus). He clearly doesn’t know who touched him from behind:

Mark 5:32 He looked all around to see who had done it.

So Jesus is being touched by a lot of people, doesn’t know who touched him to draw the power but somehow manages to know the person touched his robe only but not his body to draw power. The author of Mark slipped up here and showed his cards.

Vinnie

Several thoughts:
I question if we must view The Biblical Flood in that manner? I don’t think it is a prerequisite to understand this account.
Wasn’t the mustard seed size a figure of speech? Do you think He intended to be taken literally when He said that? Jesus knew He was tapped into, didn’t He, whether it was on or in his body or robe? His energy was made available.

I think Christ plays dumb at times. He is not a stiff, wooden, robot. He can be subtle and goofy and fun and nuanced I would imagine. "13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”

19 “What things?” he asked. (Like He doesn’t know!?)

“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.

”He saw the apostles in places He couldn’t see. If He set aside his ability to know all things while in human form, can’t He still be God? Ascribing infinite attributes to describe God is our way of defining God isn’t it? I think his nature remained God. He, him, his true nature, his core, was God? Just a thought. I don’t think I can understand all these mysteries, but I think He grants me enough light to assure me He is I AM that I AM. IOW, I don’t think the challenges we find in the NT automatically disqualify the account we have of his life.
Remember, too, that this singular person, based on the description we have of him, is responsible for much of the development of Western Civilization in addition to the impact He’s had throughout the rest of the world. What has been accomplished is not just a function of recorded words, either. There is testimony from millions of people for two thousand years with nothing to gain, that He himself manifested his presence to them individually and changed them fundamentally, inside their hearts, and minds, and lives.
That says something. We need to look closer at that phenomenon. It is substantial.

Can I interest you in taking a hard look at John 14-17?

Gilgamesh and Atrahasis are the context. They are both older than the Biblical version and there are many parallels between all three. In some ways the Biblical version is more advanced: God wipes the earth clean because of the wickedness of humans and possibly because of heavenly and earthly “interspecies cohabitation” (to use Enns terminology) referenced in Genesis 6:1-4 (the Nephilim). In Atrahasis human population increased so much the gods couldn’t sleep due to the noise so they sent the flood. These gods are even scared by the flood in the other accounts. God in the Bible is in control at all times. He is not scared.

The Genesis flood narrative is a theological retelling of these epics or at least the shared understanding of them. Its Israel’s version. The differences between the accounts are significant because it is there we find what the narrative actually means.

Like when he lied to his brothers in John 7?

Vinnie

2 Likes

That isn’t a lie the way I see it. He’s allowed to change his mind, I would think, no? I’m not going. Ok, I’ll go. He was a human being. Humans change their plans. What He said was true when He said it. Then, He decided to go.

He pretended He didn’t know what the guys were discussing in the example I gave. He was a man. He had a personality. He bled. He cried. He cared. He got furious. He got hungry and thirsty, impatient, disappointed, delighted, amused, impressed, on and on. That is why He is so unbelievable, so remarkable, so relatable, so lovable, so sympathetic, so fascinating, because He was God, too. GOD.

I like that line from Suzanne, “He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone.”

  • “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise” (John 5:19).
  • “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me” (John 5:30).
  • “I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” (John 5:43–44).
  • “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me” (John 7:16).
  • “The one who speaks on his own authority seeks his own glory; but the one who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and in him there is no falsehood” (John 7:18).
  • “I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me” (John 8:28).

Vinnie, where did they find these ideas? Who, who could have conceived of the things He said?

Anyone? This mystifies me. I can’t imagine someone developing the expressions attributed to Christ, except Him. Many find questionable features in and about the bible. What if we started in John chapters 14 -17 to try to figure out Who said the words handed down to us we find there? I think that would be an interesting place to begin an examination of his life.

“I am the true vine and my father is the gardener”
He is “the” vine. What vine? Who in his right mind ever described himself as a vine? What is He trying to say? His father is a gardener? So? Makes no sense at all, unless He’s describing a role He plays along with his father. What role? What point is He trying to make? There’s a million questions here.

Throughout the Old Testament one can find numerous instances of persons with two names. It was a very common practice insomuch that even Solomon is called Yedidyah, in 2 Sam 12:25. Abiathar is called Ahimelech in 1Sa 21:1; 1Sa 22:9, 1Sa 22:11, 1Sa 22:20; and Ahiah in 1Sa 14:3.

Serious study of the Hebrew text shows us that both the father and the son had two names. In 2Sa 8:17, and 1Ch 18:16, we have Ahimelech the son of Abiathar; and in 1Sa 22:20 Abiathar the son of Abimelech (who was the son of Ahitub). There is no “confusion in the Hebrew text”.

The Lord’s enemies are the best witnesses of this, for they would not have missed such an opportunity of effective reply . They knew what modern critics do not know.

1 Like

Very interesting. This can explain the apparent discrepancy regarding the shew bread incident?

Who are these vague enemies of the Lord that you speak of? What percentage of their writings survive to us?

Your statement is factually incorrect. The first two witnesses we know of to the Gospel of Mark are Matthew and Luke. Most suspect they wrote within 1-2 decades after Mark was completed and BOTH of them who copied Mark’s Gospel extensively omit the reference to Abiathar while including the rest. Not only that but there are several examples of textual corruptions where some scribes removed Abiathar matching Mark more closely with Matthew and Luke, thus removing the potential error. There are also an abundance of textual witnesses where an article was added to make the timeframe more general, thus removing the potential error. To this end, some apologists online speculate that maybe these corruptions are the original and textual criticism can eliminate the problem.

On top of that Daniel Wallace points out this is an old problem with many patristic writers commenting on it: “This is an old view, with a long list of patristic writers and later authorities embracing some spin on it. Chrysostom, Victor of Antioch, Euthymius Zigabenus, Theophylact, Beza, Heumann, Kuinoel, Garland, Hurtado, Guelich, and many others mention it.”

When the problem was recognized within a decade or two after Mark wrote, around nineteen-hundred and forty years ago, its a bit odd that you can state, “They knew what modern critics do not know.” Instead, countless pious Christians spanning the last 1900 years have all recognized what some apologists are now dubiously asserting is a modern problem.

In the case of Solomon the text explicitly tells us the the prophet gave him a second name:

2 Sa 12:24-25 24 Then David consoled his wife Bathsheba, and went to her, and lay with her; and she bore a son, and he named him Solomon. The Lord loved him, 25 and sent a message by the prophet Nathan; so he named him Jedidiah, because of the Lord.

Because Solomon has two names does not mean everyone has two names or that the OT cannot mix up names in a listing. That lapse in memory happens often enough to virtually everyone on the planet.

Some of your references like 1 Sa 21:1 assume what you are saying is true already. In the incident Mark has Jesus recall, of which Jesus adds all sorts of details not actually in the account to justify the early Church’s behavior (hint hint), David comes to Nob to Ahimelech. That is not a clear reference to the Bible calling Abiathar by Ahimelech that can be used to justify your exegesis. The real issue seems to be 2Sa 8, 1 Ch 16 and 1 Sa:22.

2 Sam 8 15 So David reigned over all Israel; and David administered justice and equity to all his people. 16 Joab son of Zeruiah was over the army; Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud was recorder; 17 Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiathar were priests**; Seraiah was secretary; 18 Benaiah son of Jehoiada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David’s sons were priests.

1 Samuel 22: 20 But one of the sons of Ahimelech son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David.

Serious study does not demonstrate what you think it does. Unless we believe on a priori grounds that the Old Testament cannot be in error on any issue, this looks more like a mixing up of names. If we are just believing both must have two names (three now for Abiathar = Ahimelech and Ahiah) because OT lists include them mixed up and cannot err, you are offering an assumption, not an argument. Serious study involves critical thinking, not creative thinking and pious imagination.

I already linked the article by the conservative evangelical Daniel B. Wallace on this issue from an evangelical theological society meeting (@Ralphie this should provide a potential answer to what you asked but it involves midrash).

https://bible.org/article/mark-226-and-problem-abiathar

His fifth solution that he prefers, in my mind, is just another “what if,” so common to inerrancy advocates, but it is better than using pious imagination on an Old Testament that makes errors and mixes up names to fix an error in the New Testament. Nothing about the incident is sound. Jesus essentially concedes the Pharisees point. This is probably why Matthew adds to it, he tries to fix it. It exists within a largely chiastic structure (Mark 2:1-3:6) and that sort of literary device does not occur by accident. Mark took four pre-existing controversy stories (possibly written or told orally as a unit) and added some theological and literary spice to them. In doing so he botched a couple of points but his overall message in this section about Jesus is wonderfully made.

There is a lot of speculation and an abundance of potential solutions to this error. This shows how vexing the issue is and how creative apologists can be when they are unwilling to admit the obvious. Wallace’s article is fair and balanced as is his final conclusion, which appears far less certain than some solutions claim to be:

“In 1883, Thomas M. Lindsay could write about the Abiathar problem: “Various explanations of the difficulty have been given, none very satisfactory.”38 It’s one hundred and twenty-one years later and you may feel, as do I, that if Lindsay were to rise from the dead he’d repeat his complaint verbatim!”

Vinnie

2 Likes

I think it is possible they shared their names. (People used to call my dad by name all the time when I gained a little notoriety on the gridiron. He loved it!) Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” Tough to do, I imagine, when Jesus won’t get there for three days himself. (SpaceTime/eternity/fabric/worm holes/gravitational waves from black holes munching down neutron stars), it is all breathtaking and beyond my comprehension.
The bible contains many promises that the word of God is perfect. It is natural to try to defend its inerrancy.
To paraphrase, there are those who believe Christ is found to be in error when He promised some who were standing there that they wouldn’t taste death until they saw him returning. He also said, those who believe in him shall never die. If errors were made in copying the original texts, if Christ had a memory lapse, or scribes copied incorrectly on purpose from the copies they used, He was still God. I bet He missed a nail, hammering his thumb instead on occasion. Bet He had gas, couldn’t pay attention perfectly, snored, had a crush or two, tripped, laughed a bit too loud. But then, look what He did for Bob Dylan and Brian The Head Welch, Dr. Bart, Chuck Colson, Jimmy Carter, Reggie White, hundreds of people I know, me. I bet He even sneezed.
His “fabric”, his nature, his Person, even though in a human body limited and as imperfect as it was, was God, IMO.
There wasn’t a conspiracy to alter the texts to produce someone like Christ, IMO. That is too creative for my taste. No. I think we have a very close description of Christ as He was. I’ve met him. He’s my best friend. Has been for a long time. What He is alleged to have done in the lives of countless millions is not a function of the power of suggestion, mass hypnosis, or something other “religions” can match. An open invitation to all: Find the testimonies from followers of other “faiths” and compare them.

I wish Dr. Michael Brown and Bart would debate again. Michael is a most remarkable force in the modern day defense of Christianity.

Of course you do. As do I and any sane person. It’s not logically impossible to go by two names. But mere possibility is useless to me in a discussion. A million things are possible. Good history and exegesis is not concerned with what pious Christians think is logically possible. Without inerrancy forcing this position, I would guess these conservative Christians would just conclude the names were mixed up like they would anywhere else in life under similar circumstances. That is how I operate. There is nothing to suggest they shared names. Only an a priori belief in the doctrine of inerrancy.

Of course it comes “naturally” to those who believe in it. Just as it’s natural to defend young earth creationism for young earth creationists, misogyny for misogynists, atheism for atheists, moon landing hoaxes for conspiracy theorists or anti-vaccine propaganda for anti-vaccers. That does not mean it’s intellectually credible.

What do you mean by “word of God?” and what do you mean by “perfect?” Can anything written in language—a limited human construct—ever be absolutely perfect? If your definition of perfect includes, moral, scientific and internal errors I’m all for it.

Also, where is your evidence that the Bible, a collection of 73 individual books, put together written over thousands of years by many different authors, claims all 73 books are perfect?

Even if “the Bible” claimed to be inerrant, what does that matter? If it’s not inerrant no one is forced to accept that statement. The reasoning is circular.

What are you paraphrasing? It looks to me like you are bringing up a completely new issue that no one has discussed in here yet. And I don’t think I said Jesus was wrong here. The error is being attributed to Mark. Though I do maintain the incarnated Jesus was not omniscient and capable of intellectual mistakes, capable of stumbling, burning food, stubbing his toe, passing gas and banging his thumb with a hammer.

Early Christians experienced the transforming and risen Jesus. He wasn’t a thing of the past. The spirit was present and real. Jesus spoke to them and Christian prophets lived the Gospel and retold stories based on communal need. Oral tradition thrived well into the second d century. They didn’t alter the text to produce “a Christ”. They were written to glorify the Son of God and cast him in the strongest light possible given the stumbling block of his crucifixion. It’s as much worship as it is history and Gospel. All intertwined into one story written in a very specific time and place attempting to meet the needs of its community and provide them tools to preach to others.

Vinnie

1 Like

Ahimelech (Hebrew: אֲחִימֶ֫לֶך‎ ’Ăḥîmeleḵ , “brother of a king”),[1] the son of Ahitub and father of Abiathar (1 Samuel 22:20–23), but described as the son of Abiathar in 2 Samuel 8:17 and in four places in 1 Chronicles.[1]

It looks like there is a reason to suggest they shared names, to me. I haven’t studied it, but I will because it seems as though there are conflicting opinions. I want to explore it. Fascinating stuff.

Communal need? I think they preached to everyone/anyone who would listen based on everyone’s need for a relationship with Christ.
An argument is proffered by some higher critics that Christ was not God’s son based in part because of inconsistencies in what He said. I attempt to refute a couple of them here. I will try to address my comments to everyone in future.

1 Like

I didn’t believe it. I reviewed some information that supported that position. It made sense. I’m learning. Love to learn.

Proverbs 30:5 - Every word of God is pure he is a shield unto them trust in him
Proverbs 30:5-6. King James Version … Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. … Psalm 12:6
The words of the Lord are pure words;
As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.
The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
Your word is very pure,
Therefore Your servant loves it.
The sum of Your word is truth,
And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.
2 Samuel 7:28
Now, O Lord God, You are God, and Your words are truth, and You have promised this good thing to Your servant.
John 17:17
Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.
2 Corinthians 6:7
in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left
Psalm 119:142
Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness,
And Your law is truth.
Matthew 22:16
And they *sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.
You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
Judas (not Iscariot) asked Him, “Lord, why are You going to reveal Yourself to us and not to the world?” 23Jesus replied, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24Whoever does not love Me does not keep My words. The word that you hear is not My own, but it is from the Father who sent Me.…

Just a handful. It is clear to me that that which we refer to as the bible is his “Word.”
You have made several statements about me that are not true. By itself, that diminishes the value of discussing these things with you. More than that, I sense that I am a source of aggravation to you. That has not been my purpose, but I think it would be best if we chilled out and discussed with others our thoughts and questions.
You have a terrific mind and vast knowledge of various topics pertaining to the bible. I admire you for that. At my age I will never learn one tenth of all you know. God Bless you Vinnie

The Bible nowhere says Abiathar had two names. It is disingenuous to suggest it does. What we have are small genealogical lists of names in several accounts where Abiathar and Ahimelech are reversed. That is what is in scripture. All I see is a stretching of scripture to circumvent an obvious mistake that is extremely trivial, means nothing and does nothing to hurt inspiration.

Quoting a dictionary, presumably one supporting inerrancy is again, an assumption, not an argument. The NJBC calls the confusion of the names “genealogical amnesia.”

Vinnie

1 Like

7 posts were merged into an existing topic: John-History or reframing?

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.