Re: The Flood Hoax

From: Robert Schneider (
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 20:08:34 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "KJV translation (Was Re: The Flood Hoax)"

    In editing a sentence in my note below I made an error. The sentence in
    question, in paragraph three, reads: "In fact, I see no reason not question
    the historicity of the story that Christ refers to..." What I intended to
    write is "In fact, I see no reason to question, etc." I take the story of
    David and the shewbread as historically factual.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Robert Schneider" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:47 AM
    Subject: Re: The Flood Hoax

    > Ian in his note below interprets Jesus in Matt. 5:17, 18 as referring to
    > "inerrancy" of the scriptures or the law. I think rather that Jesus was
    > referring to "fulfillment" rather than "inerrancy." He also writes that
    > "Christ re-affirmed OT stories (Jonah in Mt. 12:38-40)" and adds "Were
    > Christ's references to Jonah and the flood simply his misunderstanding of
    > the scriptures? Did He really believe that Jonah was swallowed by a big
    > fish?" Reading this passage from Matthew I see no reason to conclude
    > necessarily that Christ thought that the story of Jonah was a historical
    > fact. One could make a good case that Christ, being a teller of parables
    > himself, recognized that the story of Jonah is an extended parable, for
    > lesson which Christ draws from the story of Jonah is the lesson of that
    > parable: repentance. That is one "sign of Jonah" Christ clearly refers
    > Another is his using the allusion of Jonah in the fish three days and
    > as an allegory for his forthcoming death and resurrection; the former sign
    > is wrapped around the latter.
    > Jesus' reference to the flood in Matt. 24:37-39 needs to be seen as
    > of a longer pericope including 36-44. Jesus is using the story of Noah to
    > illustrate his point that no one knows when the son of Man will come. He
    > was not making a scientific statement about whether the flood was global
    > local, or whether it was historically true or theologically true or both.
    > One should not assume that Jesus' views about the flood story matched
    > own.
    > Regarding Christ's references to David in Matt. 12, 3-4, I hope I
    > haven't overlooked anything, but I have read no posting recently that has
    > denied the historicity of David. In fact, I see no reason not question
    > historicity of the story that Christ refers to, even if there are other
    > episodes in the David story that combine history with motifs common to
    > folklore. One again, Jesus was using this story of David and the
    > as an illustration of the point he was making that the Son of Man is lord
    > the sabbath; he was not arguing with the Pharisees about the historicity
    > David.
    > Let me add that the doctrine of the Incarnation fully affirms
    > humanity in Jesus, that, as the author of Hebrews put it, he was in every
    > respect like us, save without sin. If Jesus was "in every respect like
    > he had the same kind of knowledge, with its limitations, as his fellow
    > and as we do. Why should anyone expect otherwise? As a Baptist minister
    > friend once said of him, "He didn't know Einstein's theory of relativity
    > from day one." Jesus was not the omniscient God walking around in a body
    > (cf. Phil 2:5-11): that Gnostic heresy was the first one condemned by the
    > Church.
    > My beef with people who use references like these to claim Jesus on
    > their side in the debate over literal inerrancy is that they are taking
    > verses out of context and in doing so mis-taking and mis-reading them.
    > should take care not to assume that their own interpretation (or logic) is
    > God's.
    > Finally, a few remarks. I have witnessed no one on this list
    > any OT story, "or worse." As to the notion that if one does not believe
    > thing in the Bible, how can he believe anything in it, or believe what it
    > has to say about salvation, I do not mean any disrespect to Ian or anyone
    > else who holds this perspective, but I feel compelled to say that I think
    > this either/or thinking does a great disservice to the Bible; and I shall
    > yield to the temptation to say with Jesus, "O ye of little faith."
    > Bob Schneider
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Hassell, Ian C." <>
    > To: <>
    > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:33 AM
    > Subject: RE: The Flood Hoax
    > > Jesus (Mt 5:17,18), Paul (2 Tim 3:16,17) and Peter (2 Peter 1:20,21)
    > > there are probably more) all referenced the inerrancy of the
    > or
    > > the "law" (they were obviously referring to what we know as the Old
    > > Testament). Christ on several occasions re-affirmed OT stories (Jonah
    > Mt
    > > 12:38-40, David in Mt 12:3,4 and the flood in Mt. 24:37-39 and Luke
    > > 17:26-32). Throughout the past 6 months that I've been reading this
    > > news-post I've seen many pieces of the OT re-explained, negated,
    > or
    > > worse through claims of those understanding modern science much better
    > than
    > > I do. Were Christ's references to Jonah and the flood simply his
    > > misunderstanding of the scriptures? Did He really believe that Jonah
    > > swallowed by a big fish? What are the implications to our acceptance
    > the
    > > OT, and to a larger extent our acceptance of Christ, given these quotes
    > from
    > > him? I'm open to debate on the Bible - we are encouraged to "test all
    > > things" (I Thes 5:21) - but at what point does the Bible's inaccuracy
    > begin
    > > to erode our understanding of God? and ultimately the foundation of
    > > faith?
    > >
    > > If there are errors throughout the Old and New Testaments, how do we
    > > the "important" pieces are accurate. How do we know that Jesus said "I
    > > THE Way..." and not "I am A Way...". At what point do we lose basis
    > our
    > > faith? This isn't a call to blind faith, rather it's a challenge of
    > Source
    > > Authority. Which holds ultimate authority: God's omniscience and
    > > omnipotence? or the latest interpretations of scientific data?
    > >
    > > Why try to measure God by our human standards/logic/reason rather than
    > seek
    > > to understand His logic/rationale when the Bible and/or science appear
    > > confusing and contradicting? Clearly a philosophical debate, but one
    > the
    > > heart of all Biblical interpretation.
    > >
    > > Ian Hassell
    > >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 17 2002 - 20:42:54 EDT