Noah and the Ark

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Pel the things you presented, the Bible presents AS PARABLES. The things were discussing the Bible presents AS EVENTS, big difference.

Really? Just what is the difference? It's not so easy to tell if you just broad brush the whole 1,500 years of the Bible's compilation. You have to do a bit more work than that.

[The stories in Genesis]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Did lots wife really turn into a pillar?
Did God really destroy Sodom & Ghommorah with fire?

What we know: The area around "Sodom" (and it is a region and not just one or two cities) is a volcanic rift valley representing the lowest land surface on the globe. There are active vents, geysers and hot springs throughout the region. The presence of large amounts of sulfur are evidence of super heated water having been mixed with magma from the earth's mantle. There are also freshwater springs currently used for agriculture whose source is the Judean hill country to the west.

In answer to your questions: 1) I don't really know, and it's certainly not a doctrinal matter as you appear to want it to be... and 2) Ultimately, yes.

There are ruins of ancient buildings beneath the waters of the present Dead Sea. This gives evidence that the Dead Sea as we have known it is a relatively new fixture in the region. The presence of the famous salt pillars is evidence that the Sea has filled and evaporated down several times within the history of man.

In assigning "blame" or responsibility to God for the destruction of the buildings that we find submerged it's important to understand that all such catastrophes are ultimately an "Act of God." The Jews would even attribute the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians as an "Act of God."

The interactions of the historic characters Abraham and Lot with the events of Genesis 19, do not appear to be at odds with the geologic evidence that there has been no volcanic activity in the area for 4,000 years. The area is still very prone to earthquakes and is an actively expanding Rift Valley.

Abraham predated the Exodus by almost 500 years and the Exodus took place about the 1440's BC - Our year of 2010 minus 4000 = the year 1990 BC. The Yale scholar John Van Seters dates the historical character Abraham within just 10 years of these dates.

The events of Genesis 19 at least appear to fit with the geologic history of the region. Your description of the "Transmutation" of Lot's wife from a carbon based life form to none living halite (rock salt) is a bit problematic. You state that this miraculously happened.

However, human language is such that I think it is not necessary to force our own ideas of the transmutation of chemical elements to accept the Bible's account of her demise at face value. An eyewitness may have seen her covered with silvery ash. Later visitors to the site, failing to find any body, would see the salt pillars. "Mount Sodom" today is 5 miles long, 3 miles wide and 742 feet high. It is made almost entirely of rock salt.

Whatever became of her body, the remains almost certainly are thoroughly encrusted and infused with salt crystals. I see no reason to demand that all believers everywhere accept the idea that her body was miraculously transmuted into halite rock salt.

Do you see the difference in our approaches? You at least appeared to demand that the reader accept the "miraculous" transmutation of elements in your retelling of the story. I just took it for what it said, looked up a little on the geology of the region, and found the geologic history to in fact be in accord with what the Bible had to say all along.

We both started from the same place of belief in the Bible's reliability and truths. We both ended in the same place of faith. You just picked "baggage" along the way of insisting upon a more literal account than what the Bible really intended (IMHO). I think that detracts from the Bible's account.

On the other hand, I too picked up the "baggage." I consulted with geologists for a geologic history of the region and I believe that this actually amplified and gave greater credence to the Bible's account. I then turned to a "modern scholar" and found that the results of his investigation corroborated both the geologic history and the Bible's account.

(I gotta break for a bit... be back after a while)