Well, I did provide a link where Jewish scholars only recently were saying the flood story was not historical fact. Previously they seemed to think it was.
Much earlier I asked you for a link to your scholars who always viewed it as not historical )as described in the Bible).
Recently, like day before yesterday? What happened day before yesterday to change their minds?
Did they also change their minds about the importance of justice in our lives?
If the author of Noahâs flood lived today, would he write, âGod sent a flood?â Of course not! (Well, unless he was an atheist 
) As mankind learns more and more about physical science, physics, chemistry, etc. this knowledge/truths permeate our lives.
If an author today wants to talk about the injustice of mankind, what would be an effective setting? Or if he wanted to talk about new beginnings and why they they didnât work out particularly well, what setting would be sketched for the story?
Feel free to respond to what I said, thanks.
Noahâs Ark is as much a story about Godâs morality as it is of humans. Unless of course, God is a pointless/arbitrary character in the fantasy/myth.
Of course not, because the author wouldnt be taken seriously if the author was asserting it as historical. But you claim the authors werent, so I have absolutely no idea what your point is. You havent even proven or given evidence of what these old writers 1000s of years ago meant, beyond assertions of what you know and appeals to authority.
Stop obfuscating the conversation. We arent talking about authors today. If youâd like to make a point about 2000 year old authors, cite your sources and make them. Otherwise, this is just a story in your head, an imagination, just like the stories of the Bible.
^ This
The New King James Version
Dragging in (or reading through the lens of) modern culture/knowledge distorts the original account. Likewise, writing an account today using only the knowledge and culture mores of yesteryear, distorts from the intent of the modern author.
Those who wish to argue the existence of God have no need to go back to the knowledge and culture of ancient man. Argue from the perspective of modern knowledge and modern culture. That is possible, isnât it? And, wouldnât it be more productive than making a hash of a time/culture that has not been studied very well?
My part of the conversation I do my way. Over a decade of study, I did not keep a tally of footnotes on everything I have read and learned. If you want the sources, do your own study, I am sure you will run into them.
Presently, I have a few minutes here and there to contribute, and wonât be told how I am to present my contribution. If you donât care for my contributions, please feel free to skip right past them. It might make us both happier.
I think that any believer of Christ can sit well knowing that the Bible has
sold more copies than any other book in general.
By the way, I told yaâll on here that Democrat Politicians colluded with Russia.
Now Conservatives, the Conservative Media, and Trumps team are going to expose the truth about it more and more, over time.
It would help if you read the link I provided you. The story is from two years ago and it talks about how Jewish scholars in modern times have determined that Noah is not a historical record. Here, let me requote for your convenience.
Hope this helps your understanding.
Didnât need to read the link. Already know that most (not all) Jewish leaders/scholars do not consider the flood story scientific history. Most reached that conclusion a lot longer than two years ago. Was this the first you had heard of it? If so, atheists need to catch up.
Meri, yes we again are in agreement. My comment citing the article was from two years ago was in response to your odd shaping as if it were from two days ago.
Regardless, the article, which I linked to and excerpted, specifically mentioned modern scholarship. Only you are assuming that means in the last two years.
But your point has always been that Jewish scholars going back to the original writing claim that Noahâs story was not meant to be literal. Unfortunately, you havenât provided any evidence of this while I have provided evidence to the contrary.
Hope this helps clear the air of misunderstanding between us.
Admittedly, I was exasperated. When did you learn these things? I, a Catholic school kid was ten. Without telling him about this thread, I asked my atheist husband (a public school kid) when he first learned that Noahâs flood wasnât a global flood. He said he was about ten. In other words, this knowledge has been around for decades, at least five. Kids were picking it up ages ago.
Catholic kids, of course, were focused more on the New Testament. It wanât until I was in college (which was also decades ago) that I went back to Noahâs Ark because I wondered why people in those days seemed to paint God in a bad light. After crawling through ancient histories, ancient languages, ancient cultures, commentaries from hundreds of years ago time after time the answer was this was a story about justice; it, and many of the stories afterwards, were about what was occurring after the new beginning, and theories about why the same issues that were pre-flood were also copping up post flood.
What causes people to abandon justice? People believe God has a standard of justice, but He also has a standard of mercy. People and the problems they face are the focus. If we cannot figure out ourselves and our ways, how are we ever going to figure out God and His ways?
I was studying this decades agoâitâs been around that long. But you want links! Sorry, we didnât study in links back in those days and all footnotes have long since been discarded in favor of using the space for kidâs art and essays. All the same, with all the material that gets transferred to the Internet, I wouldnât be surprised if someone who can afford the time can locate them.
Had a Ryrie study bible and still have the John MacArthur, Liberty (Jerry Fallwell), and Charles Stanley Life Principles study bibles.
John MacArthurâs has all the basic âbells and whistlesâ so donât have to refer to bible handbooks, bible dictionaries or concordances. I like the feature of a index to basic doctrines and theology.
Various Bible translations are very close and accurate if you stay with the âmain lineâ versions. It only differs in the âreadabilityâ that one prefers. Such as word for word, thought for thought, combination of word for word and thought for thought and the amplified combination of word for word and thought for thought. Then theres the paraphrase.
Word for Word is rated in the 12th to 11th grade reading level. Think the NASB is â12thâ grade along with the original King James. Think the Revised King James is â11thâ grade.
Thought for thought translations are in the mid range reading level around the 8th to 6th grade.
The âlowestâ reading level is the paraphrased bibles which is intended for the English as second language readers.
The latest study bible type is the âCultural Backgrounds Study Bibleâ But its only available for the NIV, King James and ESV and not NASB.
Yes, we have to take historical context into account when reading ancient texts. So what?
Ok. I guess you cant provide sources for your assertions. You preach so much about academic rigor in studying these texts, but cant even muster the energy to back up what you say with citations? Even though you have âover a decadeâ of study? Not buying it. Sorry. I wont be told to skip past your posts and not contribute. Pot, meet kettle.
To quote Sarah Palin, âAll of them!â
No wonder you arent understanding @Borgia_dude. All youâre doing here is preaching assertions of how valid your knowledge is and warping the points made by others, without even considering their points of view, or providing citations to back up your claims. Thatâs not how academia and research works, let alone mature conversation between humble adults.
This isnt an honest conversationâŚlike always
I started scanning through the Genesis Rabbah, and while I havenât found anything that claims it was not a global flood, it is mentioned that it was the second great flood.
As this is rabbinical commentary from around 300 to 500 C.E., it might shed some light on what rabbis thought.
