From: Marcelo Cantos <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Salvation and the Ark
Date: 28 May 1997

Rowland Croucher <> writes:

Nigel B. Mitchell wrote:

(Michael Kennedy) wrote:

Why am I not surprised, that you reject certain parts of the Bible as false.

I have never said that any of the Bible is false. I think that most of it is a-historical, but that does not stop it from being both 'true' and 'the word of God'.

Karl Barth preferred the word 'saga' - I think a good word ('myth' has confusing connotations for many people)

I'd suggest the literalists be honest and confess that there's a whole bunch of miracles here - Noah getting animals from everywhere and getting them back again, fossils on Mt. Everest, dietary/food requirements, keeping predators from their prey (at least in the initial stages), salt/fresh water creatures surviving in an alien environment.

I heartily agree! The flood was a miraculous event, and perhaps it is stretching things to attempt a naturalistic explanation of every aspect. My problem really lies with the assumption that the supernatural aspects of the flood render it mythical.

Perhaps creationists bend over backwards to posit a completely naturalistic explanation for the flood because of the long standing ridicule that has been heaped on anyone who says, "God did it!" as if this statement is somehow automatically false.

On the other hand, they may well be able to provide a rational naturalistic explanation! I freely confess that I am not sufficiently in touch with the latest research to state as much with any certainty. I have, however, seen little to suggest that a naturalistic explanation is impossible or even untenable.

You've one or two miracles - why not multiply them and be done with it.

The danger is really in invoking miracles anytime there is a difficulty. This is not to say that "God didn't do it!" in some cases, but I suspect that the miraculous elements aren't confined to the unleashing of the flood waters.

Oh, by the way: if everything in the Bible which seems to be allegory/ folk-tale/saga etc. has to be historical: was their a real prodigal son, good samaritan, etc.? Most of my literalist friends reply: not necessarily...

I think the debate is really over whether the flood story really looks like a saga. The question is, does a saga look any different to a factual account? Is the flood story any different in style to the genealogies?

So where are we going to draw the line?

I would tend to think that the dividing line between factual accounts and parables is not so fuzzy as the above implies. Perhaps others could elaborate on this. --