so sorry you were offended, in the future i'll only post threads on kittens and bunnies so as not to hurt your feelings.
FranchiseBlade - There is no question, absolutely none, that one of the purposes of the Bible is as a historical document. There are books with chapters and chapters of NOTHING but names and places and locations and measurements and so on and so on. With regard to the ark, Genesis goes quite a bit into detail about its blueprint. You want to pull something "spiritual" out of that? In fact, I have had some friends recently, who like me have grown up mostly taking the Bible as this 'guide to life', now completely receive the Bible as a historical document. Purely. Granted, I think it was just a phase, but that is how historically packed the Bible is, and makes people wonder just what exactly the Bible's purpose is. I think the answer is that it is just as much as a historical document as it is a collection of stories of grace, or love, or sin, or whatever spirituality we draw from it.
Yep, get a room and watch some S&M. Cool it's a consensus Sammy Fisher is a badass. No question about that. Seriously though, I agree with you we should first back off and tone down a bit when we are about to confront someone with whom we strongly disagree, especially with those derisive and sarcastic one-liners (it's all too easy to get away with bitterness and unthoughtfulness). I admit I have not been a model citizen on this board in this regard.
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend you again... I'll try not to pee in your Cheerios any more. Are you serious? Hello pot, this is the kettle calling.
I would argue that parts of the Bible are meant to be historical records of the Jewish nation. Does that mean that you can't derive some spiritual meaning from them? I don't think so (e.g. Kings II, Chronicles II, etc. has listings of rulers, but it takes you through why some were successful by following God and why others failed.) But other books -- Ecclesiastes and Job -- are much more philosophical in nature. And what about Songs of Solomon -- is it a poetic attempt to show different kinds of love, a metaphor for God's love towards his people?? As a note -- the intent of the Bible -- did that come from God, or from the men who put it together? That's the tricky part as you try to interpret the Bible. Does 40 days, 40 nights mean a specific literal lapse in time? Or, like Psalms 90 -- does it reflect 'God time'? Genesis 6 states that there were giants on earth that had children with 'daughers of men' (King James) -- but in some translations, they're referred to as Nephilim, in others, they're supernatural beings. Genesis also records some incredible ages of certain people-- Noah lived 950 years! If we accept this on faith, it makes jives. If we apply historical/literal/scientific rigors to it, what could be the possible reason for the longevity? Genesis in particular is fascinating. Genesis 4: 19-22 lists the 'father' of many human inventions: domestication, music, tools -- from the verses themselves, it seems like they're meant to be taken literally and historically, contrary to archeological and anthropological evidence. If the Bible is meant to be taken historically -- then IMO to the limited modern human brain, it isn't very clear.
There are historical facts in the bible. That doesn't mean it is meant to be a historical document. There are historical facts in the story of Robin Hood. It isn't meant to be a history book on what happened when King Richard the Lionhearted went on the crusades. Yet it specifically lists real rulers, and real residences of rulers in it. When looking at the lists of rulers it is important to know that at the time it was being written, people had some knowledge of that information. It is listing the rulers for the purpose of tracing the lineage of Christ, David, and others. It also was there to put the stories that happened in context to braoden understanding for people who would derive increased meaning from the context. Which would have been significant at the time of it being written. If your friends take it as solely a historical document then your friends have an inaccurate view of history. For instance recent geological discoveries have found evidence that King David existed but that numbers used in the bible to describe his armies and the size of various cities were exaggerated. But that point remains while the 'history' can certainly be proven to not be totally accurate, it doesn't change the over all meaning of the bible one single bit. The message is still the same.
If you haven't followed this in the past I understand how this might seem like breaking news, but it's simply not. This is like taking new pictures of Dealy Plaza and saying that is sufficent to reopen the JFK lone gunman theory. It really has been beaten to death and the only thing that will add anything at all to this is going to Turkey, but the Turks won't allow that.
I've skimmed this thread and it seems like everyone is being way too defensive. Christians are getting upset that non-believers are pointing out that logically the Noah story is very unlikely. Non-Christians are offended that Christians are throwing their religion around. Everything about this is highly speculative, yes, that could be an ark but it could be a ton of other things. There isn't enough info there to jump to conclusions or to get worked up about. I guess I shouldn't be surprised though. These days we go to war over speculation not that much better than this.
