Noah's Ark (and a musing on Biblical history)

NonStampCollector is back with a brilliant return to form.






In the words of a commenter, "If you're stupid enough to believe that the story of Noah's Ark actually occurred, you're far too stupid to understand why this video owns you."

Here's what gets me though, and it comes up in the second video. Obviously there are a great many Christians who aren't ignorant enough to think the Flood actually happened. These Christians re-interpret the story as some kind of parable or metaphor. But... metaphor for what? God slaughters everything when he doesn't get his way, and Noah ends up a drunken loon.

The real elephant in the room, though, is this:
Although the account of the Ark was traditionally accepted as historical, by the 19th century the growing impact of scientific investigation and biblical interpretation had led most people to abandon a literal view in favour of a more metaphoric understanding.[2][3][4]  [from Wikipedia]

Before modern science came along, you didn't have too many theologians, if any, arguing that stories like Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden, the Flood, the Exodus, etc., were just metaphors. They were not only historical, but they served as a foundation for theology – after all, what is Christianity without the Fall?

Over time, science has forced believers to either abandon a literal belief in these things, or look like morons. Then theologians extoll the progressive virtues of theology, telling us how science has brought "new understanding" to religious scriptures like these. This was not a progression of theology. Where were the theologians prior to Darwin saying that evolution by natural selection would most certainly be God's favored method of creation? Where were the theologians saying that the universe was a vast expanse of emptiness that was billions of years old, because clearly that's the kind of universe God would have created?

Here's the harsh truth: theology does not innovate. It has no methodology by which to expose fallacious or erroneous information (the way science can), so it cannot impart us with new knowledge. Instead, theologians are forced to change their views in light of science, then retroactively proclaim that, of course, Noah's Ark is just a metaphor. As awareness of the mistakes, forgeries and contradictions of the New Testament manuscripts become better known, how long before we have Christians saying the death and resurrection of Christ is a metaphor?

Comments

Popular Posts