Forgiveness

Water is necessary for life, and a new life is made possible by the water of Baptism.

And I fall short of grace daily yet am forgiven as believer

the Bible doesn't hold water!

This is the most ridiculous interpretation of Noah's flood I ever heard. Since when is mass murder a metaphor for "cleansing"? Oh yeah, when Hitler does it.

of how the Bible is to be interpreted?

Simply because you never heard of it proves one thing. That you might want to read more widely.

Love you!

Apparently there are quite a few Biblical literalists who read these posts.

Not being a literalist myself, and having 17 years of education at religious schools, I am aware that the Bible uses metaphorical language to express things.

Guill.

I'm not really expecting a straight answer from someone who demands answers, yet never provides them, BTW.

No.

As fully predicted.

The literal reading is that the earth was inundated.

While local flooding occurs, that is not the same.

So I did answer.

You responded with a question. That’s not an answer.

So I’ll ask again and once again predict your non-answer.

Do you think the flood was a literal event or not?

If you want to qualify your answer, then feel free but as yet you haven’t answered the question and I’m pretty sure you won’t because as we both know you can’t without either contradicting yourself or your source. So feel free to continue to dodge the question as that in itself provides an answer to another question.

Do I interpret the flood story as being a literal inundation of the entire world?

No.

And as a non-literalist, that is no contradiction because we recognize the use of metaphor in the Bible.

Edited at 5.15 CST to add:

Why is Lazarus sleeping figurative and dead literal? Obviously, in this view, because that makes it a literal miracle. But if the story literally happened, it's more likely he was literally sleeping but appeared dead.

So did the miracle literally happen or figuratively happen? It seems some people want to have it all ways. He was both literally and figuratively raised from the dead and it both is and is not a miracle.

I answered it.


And the question is in line with the OP, which deals with water as metaphor.

Here it is again, from upthread:

Kinda dishonest to pretend otherwise, especially when you post the proof.

that he is some kind of liar? HOW DAER YOU!

And notice he stopped replying to you because you directly called him on his tactics.

You insist that saying there is a god, and believing a god exists are two very different and separate things that anyone should be able to tell apart, but you now claim that " So do you think the flood was a literal event or not?" and "Do I interpret the flood story as being a literal inundation of the entire world?" are the exact same question.

Some kind of selective nuance.

Of course there are floods! But nobody asked about that. What we want to know is: Do you think that Divine intervention cause an Ancient Near Eastern person, to anticipate a flood, build a boat, put his family and some animals in it, and survive while everyone else in the area died? If any part of that story is not literal, which parts and why.

Do I really need to spell it out this way?

This part specifically:

Most interpretations of the Biblical story of Noah and the Flood assume that the story is either entirely literal or entirely figurative (and therefore fictional).

Which is a case of question begging. The narrative relies heavily on miraculous elements, so even if the flood is not worldwide, there are a number of other elements in question. If you take all the miraculous elements out, it ends being a guy who saved himself from a local flood in his own boat. Which means it probably is not literal at all, because that is not a story for the ages, although I am sure there have been people in history who survived a flood in their boat.

Possibly large ones that prompted the story.

If one makes the argument that the author intended the story to be taken literally, one must accept that there is no argument or proof for that argument.

The strongest of which is that as far back as we can trace all the Old Testament miraculous stories and up until the 19th century, they were always taken literally.

which concerned the intent of the author.

So this is an example of the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Agreed? Remember, we are not talking about a mathematical proof, we are speaking of authorial proof, proof of authorial intent, in a piece of writing.

Just like we can't know if Cervantes was writing history or fiction, right?

With a bit of humor added. But if I guessed wrong about your position, please tell me correct me.

And literally the only part that could have happened is the part where Noah got drunk. Which hardly seems like much of a story. So why not just say the whole thing never happened? Is that really so hard to say?

Innit?

Gil describes his having it all ways opinion as “very widely shared”, then posts a source that says most interpretations go one way or another.

The author gives an example of figurative language in the bible. Even if you agree with that(and there’s reason not to), how do you get from a sleeping Lazarus to a figurative flood? Not surprisingly the author doesn’t say, nor does he explain why the bible went to such great lengths to describe a literal flood and its extent.

So now your latest source contradicts your other four sources which claim the flood was a literal event.

Not only that, it says most interpretations go fully one way or the other which blows a big hole in your claim that your defining interpretation is “widely accepted”. I bet you hoped I’d miss that part, eh?

So please do continue to obsfucate. I’m fully enjoying watching you continue to dig a deeper hole.

taken as allegorical.

I'm working onnit!1!!

Just curious.

One from 'scholars'/'theologians'. One from the Faith I try to represent.

I am not a literalist myself either. To a certain extent.

Do you feel 'God' is punishing some with earthquakes, floods, fires, hurt, pain, despair presently?

So rather than answering yes or no, my answer in keeping with my religiously unaffiliated preference is I don't care.

Otherwise one might think you are a bible literalist. And we all know that's not the case, right?

So yes, that is name calling in the sense of labelling what you are doing.

You invented a bullshit “definer” narrative and then expanded your bullshit narrative with name calling. Then you even had the nerve to project your half-fast ad hominem on me with zero basis.

Your preferred style.

And it was you who rejected my Biblical interpretation of water being a well known metaphor for cleansing. If memory serves, you called it a "bullshit" interpretation.

You formed a bullshit strawman fallacy followed up with ad hominem name calling with your “definer” nonsense.

I rejected your interpretation the author(s) of Genesis meant a metaphorical flood rather than a literal one. Other people did as well. Hell even your own sources don’t agree with you. You are the only one who defined anything which you can’t even begin to support with anything other than your own baseless opinion.

Meanwhile you won’t even answer a straightforward question as to whether you now consider the flood to be a literal event like all your sources do.

But feel free to continue with your usual canned responses and name calling. It’s really the best you have at this point and it’s not as if I’d expect anything else.

2. Flooding occurs everywhere. Even in that area of the world.

Do I interpret the flood story as being a literal inundation of the entire world?

No.

And as a non-literalist, that is no contradiction because we recognize the use of metaphor in the Bible.

Edited at 5.15 CST to add:

I'll tell about you a different problem with it. It basically says.it partly literal and partly figurative, because whatever could not be literal must be figurative. Which is a meaningless tautology.

Try reading your own source that says “most” interpretations are either literal or figurative and then tell us again how your interpretation is “very widely shared”.

Or just repeat the same post once more and give me another opportunity to embarrass you again.

Without clear definitions, there is no knowledge.

Your attempt at name-calling is a total failure.

Every single one regards the flood as a literal event. Meanwhile if you call bullshit on Gil's interpretation that it wasn't intended to be a literal event, you are called a "fundamentalist" and a "definer" both terms intended as a pejorative.

Oh well, as with many believers it's do as I say, not as I do.

"Do as I do and not as I say."

I don't think you will find anything new or different in the bible compared to the use of water as a symbol before and after the writing of the bible.

God Krishna says, I am the taste of water.

'I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man.'

As simile, analogy, parable or metaphor, water is used often in Vedic teaching.
What need of a well when the river is in flood?
Ocean and waves to explain separate-individuality (wave) and oneness-identity (ocean).

I have little knowledge of the book, or of the teachings, but water as a symbol of renewal is everywhere in the Abrahamic religions.

Your first link doesn't even mention the flood.

Your second link from the OP regards the flood as a literal event.

He relies on no one reading his links.

Are you telling me that in a desperate attempt to defend a ridiculous comment in another thread, gil posted a link that directly contradicts his position?

Both of which also contradict his assertion.

In fact, when he *tries* he only succeeds in humiliating himself, as he did once again in this thread.

So he resorts to attacking those who hold different opinions, to try and silence or at least negate their point of view.

Classic guillaumeb.

asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group. Perhaps the personal messages aren't as numerous as they used to be, and he's trying out some new material in an attempt to revive the interest of his fickle fans.

But embarrassing how you mis-use it, just like all the other ones you've tried.

But you are consistent.

Using the word forte, of course, in an ironic sense.

You can continue to insist that the Flood story can only be interpreted as an angry deity punishing people. And by such an insistence, you define yourself as the Definer of what constitutes acceptable textual analysis.

Meanwhile you still haven’t answered why your own links define an actual flood in just that way and there’s no reason to suspect you ever will answer the glaring contradiction of your own making.

But feel free to continue to hurl your pejoratives as people often do when their reasoning has reached its limits. I’ll also take that as a tacit admission of intellectual bankruptcy.

That too is your forte.

I stated that water is a well known and frequently used Biblical metaphor for cleansing, and I interpret the Flood story as metaphor.

And you insisted that my interpretation is, in your words, "bullshit".

You insist on the story being taken literally because it serves your agenda. But your attempt to limit what is acceptable interpretation reveals you as a literalist definer.

personal attack, it is a negative description of your argument, not of you.

On the other hand your current defensive tactic is now to call people here “definers”, which is apparently intended as a personal attack but in practice is so juvenile that it mostly just makes you look petulant.

Like with your previous shtick “the choir”, you should do some meditation, some self reflection, and drop it.

They claimed that your particular methodology doesn't make sense and also that the links you provided contradict some of your statements.

a personne of major import.

Ooh, 'definer'. That's really hitting below the belt.


Mon frère, Guillaume,
😚

I could really care less what names he uses. It reflects negatively on him, not me.

Good job on cheering on his juvenile behavior, though.

'Definer' is mild as a so-called 'name', no?

Oy, Gefilte.

Are you also going to encourage him with the rest of them? Which names would you find acceptable when used against you?

Which provides its own answer.

Human.

Do you need more examples of names intended to be complementary vs belittling?

on a contemplative journey, a body who entertains different views regarding life/belief from Moi dot dot dot...

"Call 1-800-how'm I doin'"

The mountains are raised, the rain and snow collect, the rivers run through the canyons and out into the plains (originally dry lands), and everywhere it goes life springs forth. And wherever this process arises life flourishes. Eventually rivers dry up (the waters go in a new direction or the sources dry up) and life recedes. But where water flows, life flourishes. Using it as a metaphor and in rituals makes perfect sense.

And how our modern world treats our waterways - rivers and streams, lakes large and small, all the way to the oceans - how we pollute it with our waste and take it for granted on a daily basis, is also telling of how out of sync we are with the natural order of the world, out of sync with the spirit of life.

What's happening here is Gil is dragging his argument that the flood mentioned in Genesis should not be viewed as a literal event and is instead a metaphor for something else which he can't quite manage to define but it has something to do with sin and taking a bath, but definitely not genocide. If anyone rejects this half-baked notion, they are referred to as ignorant of history, a biblical literalist, a definer, and a fundamentalist.

So as proof of his non-literalist concept he is dragging out references ad nauseum that all point to the flood as a literal event. If this sounds crazy to you, don't feel as if you're the only one.

...it was effectively Omnicide: the act of killing all humans, to create intentional extinction of the human species. The purported leaving of fewer than 10 people alive, as related in the mythology, would be an extinction level event. Good thing it is all a myth, otherwise the inevitable incest would have sealed the deal.

But { -on}, it was a "cleansing", and that is a "good" thing to some people who believe in certain mythologies gleaned from bronze age oral stories barely preserved in tattered manuscripts and then translated (poorly) into languages not yet born { -off}.

Inquiry: If a sandstorm abrades the flesh from an unwary traveler, is that a cleansing to be revered too?

Inquiry 2: How many fish (freshwater vs saltwater) were preserved on this mythological ark? How many cetaceans? Are they not "animals?".

For them the bible is all true and if there’s any such conflicts with reality, hocus pocus is the explanation.

Then there’s Christians who understand there’s quite a bit of mythology in the bible so they parse out what they don’t want by picking and choosing what they want to believe.

Then there’s those who want to have it both ways. They reconcile the contradictions and departures from reality as “metaphors” and if they don’t make sense, then it’s only because you don’t understand what the anonymous authors thousands of years ago were saying, but they do.

Of the three approaches, the last seems to require the highest level of delusion.

You expressed yourself. It may have been in a way offending believers. We're freakin delusional. Thanx for that. It doesn't hurt or offend.