Truth is relevant. And we have been given tools to investigate God’s cosmos.
The other is probably one of a few possible rivers in south Iran. And we have found a river trackway going across north Arabia.
So all these obervations about rivers are aimed at seeing the Genesis text arising out of a local and a not a global event. it may have seemed catastrophic to these who witnessed such a thing and hence thinking the whole world (that they did not know much about) had been affected.
I have another view of the story with an evolutionary application. One of the primary bits of the story is the saving of life to begin again. We know from geological history that there have been several mass extinction events and each time certain species survived and so became the roots of new forms of life that flourished and evolved after the events. It seems to me that God did literally save and influence life to form a new start each time. Creation is not destroyed in its entirety but enabled to re-begin new stages of progression. That says something about the love of God too save and re-start.
Great question and very thoughtful responses. The flood story has always intrigued me. As a very young person I read a book one of my older brothers had “Book of the Hopi, by Frank Waters”. In the beginning of the book is a creation myth, and similar to the Bible it is followed by a global flood story, through which a righteous man, his wife, their 3 sons and their wives are saved to repopulate the earth. I learned later that most major civilizations follow a strikingly similar historic pattern to these events, all of them with 8 persons saved to replenish the earth.
Even as a child I realized that this story with its striking similarities, recorded by peoples separated by continents, is very strong evidence that the story is unlikely to be merely a localized event. The flood story was instrumental in my subsequent belief (many years later) that the Bible, is the divinely inspired word of G-d.
I am now 60 years old, and believe that a deity that can preserve 3 men upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them (Daniel 3:27). A deity that can raise a person to life from the state of death, can easily manipulate events and elements to preserve living creatures through a global catastrophic deluge. When dealing with the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the story of Noah can literally be true.
1 Like
Of the 60 plus flood myths referred to, of the third I’ve sampled, only one other version has eight survivors. Many have two or one. One other has a rainbow. Neither of the Hopi myths has a family of eight.
1 Like
And most of them originate in geography prone to flooding, from what I read
1 Like
It has been many years since I read this, I may be mistaking the Hualapai for the Hopi. The Lakota and the Lithuanian I believe both have the Rainbow incorporated into their stories. One striking similarity many flood stories share is the sending out of birds to search for dry lands the most common being ravens, crows, doves and pigeons. The Mandan tribe of North Dakota also highly esteemed the turtle dove, which they say returned to their Noah (Nu-mohkmunk-a-nah, “the only man,”) carrying a willow bough in its mouth as a sign of the retreating waters.
Links? Sources? Apart from AiG?
At least we got meat (Gen 9:3) and rainbows (9:13) out of the deal. The latter help God remember his covenant with man when they appear in his clouds. We wouldn’t want him forgetting and accidentally drowning everyone again. With the end of veganism we also learned why God loves the sweet odor or burned animal flesh so much(Gen 8:21). It is delicious. Also we see here that the Nephilim slept with women creating demi-gods (Gen 6:4). An almost 600 year old Noah builds an ark. It has two of every animal and seven pairs of some others. Somehow they all fit and were managed by Noah and company for a long time.
This is fiction from beginning to end. Why on earth do we even need science to tell us this? It is an intellectual embarrassment that so many Christians think otherwise.
It is also huge stretch to see the narrative as having anything to do with Jesus. Contrary to the viewpoint of the author of 1 Peter, I also don’t see how God murdering millions of people is a prequel to Christian baptism. No thank you. It is probably good that it is not historical. I’m sure there is a good reason the flood narrative is in scripture that I don’t understand but at least Genesis 1-3 makes sense to me theologically speaking. The flood account baffles me. A relic of a by-gone time. Maybe it means bad things happen to bad people. God spares the good people. God punishes sin and rewards faithfulness.
That is all I got and even that may be an antiquated theology superseded by the words of Jesus and certainly by his suffering.
Vinnie
2 Likes
I think it was a miracle.
You know what I can’t understand? How in the world did Pharisees watch Jesus perform miracle after miracle and be offended that He healed people on the Sabbath? That was their takeaway. Folks, what happened to the miracles? They saw them. They believed what they saw. They didn’t accuse him of doing magic. In fact, the miracles proved to them that this character was dangerous. No, fellas. Those miracles proved He was God.
That is part of the problem with taking all the Gospel stories as literal. Jesus’ opponents become caricatures. Judas has no reason to betray such a man. A lot of the conflicts Jesus gets in looks like conflicts the later church had after his death. Also, if we accept the grain plucking on the sabbath incident and Jesus’ scriptural reference to David and the show bread as it stands in Mark, it renders Jesus ad ignoramus. Fortunately, this is part of a self-enclosed literary unit, largely if not perfectly chiastic (Mark 2:1-3:6) that shows evidence of Mark’s redactional hand in the reference to David as he reworked an earlier collection of conflict stories.
Let us look at plucking grain on the sabbath [Mark 2:23, Matthew 12:1-2, Luke 6:1-2]. It is clear in all three accounts the disciples, NOT Jesus, was plucking grain on the sabbath and in Matthew and Luke, the question is directly addressed to Jesus. In either case Jesus answers the charge and defends his disciples in all three accounts. Many form critics find this detail important, that Jesus’ disciples are accused and not him. Several critical scholars take this to mean the disciples here represent the later Church and Jesus is defending their practices. By itself this would not be completely convincing but it has merit as you should see by the end of this section. If you keep reading, Jesus responds with:
“Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? 26 He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.” Mark 2:25-26
This verse is problematic for inerrancy advocates as 1 Sam 21:1-2 says Ahimelech was high priest, not Abiathar at the time in question. Remember that Matthew and Luke copied Mark’s Gospel and both of them made this correction by removing any mention of the high priest. Some manuscripts omit this phrase “when Abiathar was high priest” in attempt to harmonize the account but there can be little doubt about the original reading on textual grounds. While I see this as a clear error, a conservative and comprehensive treatment of the issue by Daniel B. Wallace can be found online under the title “Mark 2:26 and the Problem of Abiathar.” It is clear Matthew, Luke and early Christians scribes all found this to be an error.
In addition to this, both Matthew and Luke omit part of Mark’s ending where he has Jesus state the sabbath was made for man. It is probably too radical even for them.
It has to begrudgingly said, with trepidation and respect, that Jesus’ response doesn’t seem to exemplify his usual sharp wit and teaching skills. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary points out that:
“Jesus answers the Pharisees with an argument from analogy, which is not too forceful, for David’s action did not occur on a sabbath and his action dealt with forbidden food and not with working on a forbidden day. The main point of the analogy is both that David and Jesus’ disciples did something forbidden, but that is to concede the Pharisee’s point.” NJBC p.693
Best to see this as Mark’s redactional hand. The NJBC seems to not even be critical enough here. John Meier is more so in an article that will be quoted shortly below and points out the complications with Jesus’ scriptural reference. In reading the actual account in Samuel we note that David has been on the run for several days. There were NO “disciples” with David at the time as the high priest in 1 Sam 21:1 specifically asks David why he is alone. David, on the lamb, has to lie and claim he is on a secret mission for the King and that he is meeting some people at such and such time. He also asks for weapons as his mission for the king required haste and he didn’t have time to procure them. He wants 5 loaves of bread or all that he has on hand. David is clearly lying and we can’t even be sure these disciples Jesus refers to even exist, were hungry or were actually given any bread by David. In Mark, Jesus is arguing with Pharisees, renowned for their exactness when it comes to the Law and he actually began his retort with “have you not read”, which of course the Pharisees and experts in the Law have read this account. Jesus goes on to very loosely, or dare I say erroneously use the Old Testament text of 1 Samuel 21. David had a dire need, it was life or death. Nothing remotely suggests a life or death hunger in Jesus’ apostles who are plucking grain on the Sabbath. Jesus was better teacher than this. John Meier writes:
“If there is anything certain about the ministry of the historical Jesus and its denouement, it is that Jesus was an impressive teacher and debater. Amid the fierce competition for public esteem and influence among Jews in the first-century Palestine, he acquired a fair amount of fame and following—to the point that he was perceived to be dangerous . . .
. . . If this scene gives us a true picture of the biblical knowledge and teaching skill of the historical Jesus, then the natural and very effective response of the Pharisees would have been not fierce anger and concerted oppositions but gleeful mockery. They would have laughed their heads off—and invited the populace to do the same—at this uneducated woodworker who insisted on making a fool of himself in public by displaying his abysmal ignorance of the very scriptural text on which he proposed to instruct the supposedly ignorant Pharisees.” The Historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 66, No. 4 (October 2004), pp. 561-581 (21 pages), p 579
It is clear that Palestinian Pharisees would have shredded the argument Mark attributes to Jesus here. Another reason that scholars find this an ideal form that defends Christian beliefs and practices is the implausibility of the situation. Are we to believe that Pharisees, small in number at the time (6,000 per Josephus) , are patrolling grainfields in rural Galilee, on the sabbath, in hopes of catching Jesus and his disciples in violation of the Law? This charge could be lessened somewhat if this account originally occurred in Judea where Pharisees were more prominent but was placed in a different context here by Mark. Either way, we expect a conflict on the sabbath in a synagogue, not a grain field. As John Meier Writes,
"If we suppose for the moment that Jesus and his disciples, like many pious Jews, observed a set limit outside of which one was not allowed to walk on the Sabbath—in the Mishnah, two-thousand cubits, roughly one-thousand yards—one has to ask why the disciples did not simply go into the nearby settlement to ask for food if they were hungry. If, instead, one conjectures that a “freewheeling” Jesus did not observe the sabbath limit that stringent students of the Law obeyed, the Pharisees could not have been present to see the plucking and object to it. Granted, all these considerations, even when taken together, do not render the account in 2:23-26 unhistorical; but they do begin to engender doubts.” The Historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 66, No. 4 (October 2004), pp. 561-581 (21 pages), p 574
You could argue coincidence here, or that something was going on and Pharisees happened to observe this but let us look at what happened a few verses earlier in the house of Levi (or house of Peter?), where Jesus is eating with his followers, which includes tax collectors and sinners.
13 Jesus went out again beside the sea; the whole crowd gathered around him, and he taught them. 14 As he was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he got up and followed him.
15 And as he sat at dinner in Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were also sitting with Jesus and his disciples—for there were many who followed him. 16 When the scribes of[f] the Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, they said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” Mark 2:13-16
Lo and behold, the scribes of the Pharisees show up inside the home of Levi and question Jesus’ disciples about his company. Where did they come from? Why are they eating in the home of a tax collector and simultaneously questioning Jesus on keeping company with tax collectors? This situation, like patrolling grainfields on the sabbath, seems historically implausible. I’m sure the harmonization crew could do some mental gymnastics (maybe unmentioned time elapsed in the scene) and come up with putative reasons but these excuses, exactly what they are, seem to miss the whole point of the controversy stories. There is even more to this issue though if we keep reading. Pharisees that have come down from Jerusalem are seen inspecting the hands of Jesus’ followers in Mark 7:2 by spying on them before they eat in order to ensure they were washing them and following the tradition of the Elders. Those pesky Pharisees just seem to show up everywhere! Jesus’ opponents here appear as caricatures or cardboard cutouts. As Paula Fredriksen wrote,
“Mark shapes these controversy traditions polemically, to provide the greatest contrast between Jesus and his challengers. The scribes and Pharisees fuss over imagined Sabbath infringements (in fact, none is actually presented; it is the tone of Jesus’ activity that offends), oblivious to the splendid healings; miffed by a question and a miracle, they plot his murder. In their anxiety to ensure universal conformity to their own standards of observance, they follow Jesus everywhere, watching his house to see whom he eats with and how (Mark 2:13-17 and parr.), patrolling grainfields on the Sabbath hoping to catch him out (2:23-24), checking to see whether his disciples first wash their hands before eating (7:2). This is polemical caricature, not realistic portraiture.” Jesus of Nazareth pp. 107-108
None of this is to say that Jesus didn’t engage in disputes with other Jews. It is virtually certain that he did and none of this is meant to claim that Jesus did not have a high view of himself, whereby he considered himself able to forgive sins (Mark 2:5) or that he was Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). The point we are getting at is that the literary portrait of Jesus we see here in Mark either greatly exaggerates for effect or appears to be shaped by the controversies and life of the later church (or maybe a mixture of the two). Various evangelical views on inerrancy allow for literary conventions at the time such as imprecise citation and non-chronological narration. It seems that retrojection of later Christian thought and interpretation onto the lips of Jesus should be added to the list as one of the “conventions of the time”.
Vinnie
1 Like
Isn’t that a theory? Do we accept that as a fact based on evidence or is it speculation?
If Jesus rose from the dead, if we accept that that happened, doesn’t that shed light on everything else? If He did, and He was God, that would be an enormous life changing, sort of earth shattering event. It would be impossible to understand life as we did before.
There are no universal facts in NT research. With a science background a “theory” to me does not mean “mere opinion” as it does in colloquial sense.So if this were just an [EDITED] thory it would mean a well evidenced belief with a lot of data supporting it. In science a theory is the highest form of knowledge.
The vast majority of all competent exegetes have settled on Marcan priority as one of the solutions to the synoptic problem. My research has led me to conclude this view is sound. Its not perfect but it accounts for more data than anything else. The alternative is Mark shortened Matthew but the major problem is that we just can’t give a plausible reason why. It is easy to understand the opposite, Matthew expanding Mark. Not to mention editorial fatigue in the narratives and genetic fingerprints like Markan intercalations. Markan priority is a source presupposition that goes into all my thoughts on early Christianity. Probably much like your thought that the Gospels are straight apostolic-eyewitness testimonies either directly or by proxy (Mark via Peter and Luke via associations with Paul and careful research).
Vinnie
1 Like
It is a well supported hypothesis that is accepted as a fact by Bible scholars that Mark and a document referred to as Q were source texts used by Matthew and Luke. This is something that would be taught even at conservative Evangelical schools. It’s not controversial.
2 Likes
I think the significance of Christ’s resurrection is the key here. Something easily taken for granted. Everything changes in light of that, to me. That God came to earth in the body of a man to redeem us, to die as a propitiation for our sins and to rise from the grave are the building blocks, the foundation of basic truths that are revolutionary and life changing, I believe. In a real sense, everything else pales in significance to these utterly impossible events, which actually took place. That is my view, anyway.
Yes, to live is Christ and to die is gain. None of that changes Marcan priority as the most likely solution to the synoptic problem.
Vinnie
1 Like
Evangelical Revival in England
Diane Severance, Ph.D.
England, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, was in a moral quagmire and a spiritual cesspool. Thomas Carlyle described the country’s condition as “Stomach well alive, soul extinct.” Deism was rampant, and a bland, philosophical morality was standard fare in the churches. Sir William Blackstone visited the church of every major clergyman in London, but “did not hear a single discourse which had more Christianity in it than the writings of Cicero.” In most sermons he heard, it would have been impossible to tell just from listening whether the preacher was a follower of Confucius, Mohammed, or Christ!
Morally, the country was becoming increasingly decadent. Drunkenness was rampant; gambling was so extensive that one historian described England as “one vast casino.” Newborns were exposed in the streets; 97% of the infant poor in the workhouses died as children. Bear baiting and cock fighting were accepted sports, and tickets were sold to public executions as to a theater. The slave trade brought material gain to many while further degrading their souls. Bishop Berkeley wrote that morality and religion in Britain had collapsed “to a degree that was never known in any Christian country.”
To the highways and byways
About the same time, George Whitefield, an ordained Anglican clergyman, was converted and in 1737 began preaching in London and Bristol. In order to reach the many non-church-goers, Whitefield spoke in the open fields, and large crowds began gathering to hear the message of salvation. Whitefield became an itinerant preacher, or “one of God’s runabouts,” as he called himself, traveling extensively in his wide-ranging ministry. In his day, itinerant preachers were often criticized as interfering with or undermining the role of the parish priest. Whitefield countered that many of the established clergy could not bring life to their people since they themselves were spiritually dead.
One such spiritually dead clergyman was John Wesley, who later became the founder of Methodism (although he never intended to form a separate church). Wesley had gone to Georgia with James Oglethorpe to work as a missionary to the Indians. He soon returned to England in despair and wrote, “I went to America to convert the Indians; but O who will convert me!” On the ship going to Georgia, Wesley had met some Moravian immigrants and was impressed by their spiritual strength and joy in the Lord. Back in England, as Wesley struggled with his own sinfulness and need of salvation, he received spiritual counsel from the Moravian Peter Boehler. On May 24, 1738, during a meeting at Aldersgate, Wesley experienced God’s saving grace and wrote, “I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given to me that he had taken away my sins.”
From George Whitefield, Wesley learned the importance of preaching in the open air to reach the masses. At first he could not imagine souls being saved unless they were in Church, but Jesus’ “open-air preaching” of the Sermon on the Mount convinced him it was okay.
To the poor and discouraged
Wesley was not welcomed in many of the Church of England churches. He was looked down upon as one of the contemptible religious “enthusiasts.” Maybe this was a blessing in disguise, as it permitted him to minister to the poor in prisons, hospitals, workhouses, and at the mine pit heads. Excessive taunts, verbal abuse, and even occasional physical violence could not deter Wesley.
Wesley traveled over 250,000 miles in the cause of the gospel. In his preaching he talked continually of Christ and emphasized repentance, faith, and holiness. He said that repentance was like the porch of religion; conviction of sin always came before faith. Faith was the door of religion. Faith was “not only to believe that the Holy Scriptures and the articles of our faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence to be saved from everlasting damnation through Christ.” Holiness was religion itself, “the loving God with all our heart, and our neighbors as ourselves, and in that love abstaining from all evil, and doing all possible good to all men.” As Wesley preached, multitudes responded. He noted in his journal that “the Word of God ran as fire among the stubble; it was glorified more and more; multitudes crying out, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ and afterwards witnessing, ‘By grace we are saved through faith.’”
Wesley supervised the education of lay preachers to educate the people in small cell groups where discipline and faithfulness were learned. These preachers also distributed and sold Christian books to the people, helping provide them with spiritual food. Wesley pioneered the monthly magazine and edited Christian Living, a selection of theological and devotional literature for the lay person. He also was the first to print and use religious tracts extensively.
The effects spread
Wesley used all the profits from his literary works for charitable purposes, and he encouraged Christians to become active in social reform. He himself spoke out strongly against the slave trade and encouraged William Wilberforce in his antislavery crusade. Numerous agencies promoting Christian work arose as a result of the eighteenth century revival in England. Antislavery societies, prison reform groups, and relief agencies for the poor were started. Numerous missionary societies were formed; the Religious Tract Society was organized; and the British Foreign Bible Society was established. Hospitals and schools multiplied.
The revival cut across denominational lines and touched every class of society. England itself was transformed by the revival. In 1928 Archbishop Davidson wrote that “Wesley practically changed the outlook and even the character of the English nation.”
Did Wesley save England from a revolution?
Some historians have maintained that the revival so altered the course of English history that it probably saved England from the kind of revolution that took place in France.
The power that changed Wesley and many in England is available today.
Assuming that is true, what difference does it make? What about the Son of God changes if you and the majority of scholars are correct? Who is Jesus Christ in light of that particular point of view and how is He not the same if we believe something else? Do you see what I mean?
Where? For what? Where is Wesley? And the even more influential Whitefield? What rough beast slouches toward Lagos waiting to be born?
Do you like Tull?
People what have you done?
Locked him in his golden cage.
Golden cage
Made him bend to your religion
Him resurrected from the grave
from the grave
He is the God of nothing
If that’s all that you can see
You are the God of everything
He’s inside you and me
He’s right here. It is the greatest of all mysteries and as simple as possible. All things are become new when He comes into our lives.
If I had a million dollars for you in an envelope and handed it to you, what would you do to receive it?
1 Like