Is the story of Noah and the Flood a symbol of birth?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

"I asked those Biblical scholars present whether anyone had noticed that the number of days, 270-80, is exactly the length of time for human gestation and that, as a result, one might suggest that the Biblical ark be considered a uterine symbol?"

Below is a link to an interesting scholarly article, in which the author draws many parallels between the Biblical story of Noah's flood, and the cycle of a pregnancy.  It's about 7 pages long (Of Babies, Boats, and Arks, starts on page 213).

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/as27.pdf

I find this interesting.  The New Testament specifically relates baptism (which we know to be a new birth - born again) to Noah's flood, calling the salvation of Noah's family a type of baptism (or at least, calling baptism its antitype).

Jarrod

[Rella]

"I asked those Biblical scholars present whether anyone had noticed that the number of days, 270-80, is exactly the length of time for human gestation and that, as a result, one might suggest that the Biblical ark be considered a uterine symbol?"

Below is a link to an interesting scholarly article, in which the author draws many parallels between the Biblical story of Noah's flood, and the cycle of a pregnancy.  It's about 7 pages long (Of Babies, Boats, and Arks, starts on page 213).

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/as27.pdf

I find this interesting.  The New Testament specifically relates baptism (which we know to be a new birth - born again) to Noah's flood, calling the salvation of Noah's family a type of baptism (or at least, calling baptism its antitype).

Jarrod

Interesting indeed.... And now that I have given a cursory read to the pages... I shall go study them more.

Yes, I had always been told that the Ark/flood was considered a baptism of sorts.... confirmed in the bible.
1 Peter 3:20 KJV for simplicity,  tells us

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

And the saving part was more then just to extend the life on earth and begin anew but the mention of soul (the imortal part of man) was the reason this was considered a form of baptism.

Not to belabor that specifically ... Noah's flood was also of key importance as a reference because even Jesus made mention of it...

In Matthew 24:37-39, Jesus said, "As the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. For in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah boarded the ark. They didn't know until the flood came and swept them all away."

And on an earlier occasion, Jesus made a similar statement. Luke 17:26 reports that He said, "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man: People went on eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day Noah boarded the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all."

Certainly this had to be true because Jesus  could not have paid the penalty for others' sins if He had lied or been misleading. Even if He had lied just once, His death on the cross could not have been payment for our sins. 

By Jesus' own mouth He affirmed the story of Noah, as well as God's judgment on the earth in the form of the flood.

If you are one of those who deny the world wide event...  ... I firmly believe NO genuine follower of Jesus Christ can seriously entertain the idea that the flood of Noah did not occur. And that flood was world wide... for a purpose.

But before I continue digressing and  before I ramble on about this fact of the flood and Noah...
.
What strikes me about your posting this link to read and the suggestion of "the Biblical ark be considered a uterine symbol?"

What immediately came to mind was Jesus telling Nicodemus in John 3:5

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

And then he did not clarify to Nick what He meant when Nick asked how it could be ...

But there has been much debate, even on here, about this when... Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.... and what was meant by born of water.

If it could be as simple as the natural human birth?

Your link , by suggesting that the Biblical ark might be considered a uterine symbol, would tie nicely with Jesus saying
"Except a man be born of water" with no clarification on that comment.

Very interesting to ponder... Very!

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Interesting indeed.... And now that I have given a cursory read to the pages... I shall go study them more.

I thought of you when I read this.  Figured you would find this interesting.

Noah's flood was also of key importance as a reference because even Jesus made mention of it...

In Matthew 24:37-39, Jesus said, "As the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. For in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah boarded the ark. They didn't know until the flood came and swept them all away."

And on an earlier occasion, Jesus made a similar statement. Luke 17:26 reports that He said, "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man: People went on eating, drinking, marrying and giving in marriage until the day Noah boarded the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all."

Certainly, this had to be true because Jesus could not have paid the penalty for others' sins if He had lied or been misleading. Even if He had lied just once, His death on the cross could not have been payment for our sins. 

By Jesus' own mouth He affirmed the story of Noah, as well as God's judgment on the earth in the form of the flood

That's a very modern way of looking at it (and that isn't a compliment).  Yes, Jesus affirms the story of Noah by using it.  But does he use it as literal?  Historical?  I don't believe so. 

If the original was not intended that way, it would make more sense that He affirms it in the same way it was originally used.  That is to say, in the days of Noah, the people were wicked and in need of a re-birth, to have the filth of the world washed away.

The checksum on that works... Jesus did indeed wash away the sins of the world via a new birth.  What He did not do, was obliterate the entire population of the earth, saving only a single family of people.

If you are one of those who deny the world wide event...  ... I firmly believe NO genuine follower of Jesus Christ can seriously entertain the idea that the flood of Noah did not occur. And that flood was world wide... for a purpose.

The purpose of the article was to discuss a non-literal meaning for the flood.  A meaning which actually has some relevance to us today.

It is strange to me that so many Christians want the Bible to be primarily a history book.  You do realize that the book is more powerful and relevant if it conveys spiritual truths, than if it conveys literal history, right?  That doesn't undermine its validity; it increases it.

And then He did not clarify to Nick what He meant when Nick asked how it could be ...

But there has been much debate, even on here, about this when... Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.... and what was meant by born of water.

If it could be as simple as the natural human birth?

It would be so extremely pedantic if that were the case.  Everyone has been born.  That's like if you went to a class in computer science and the first thing the teacher said was, "first, you need to have hands."  Yes, we all have hands here, no need to specifically mention it.

Your link, by suggesting that the Biblical ark might be considered a uterine symbol, would tie nicely with Jesus saying
"Except a man be born of water" with no clarification on that comment.

Very interesting to ponder... Very!

It does tie out, both with Jesus mentioning water baptism, and Paul invoking Noah's flood as a type of baptism.

Jarrod

[Rella]

I thought of you when I read this.  Figured you would find this interesting.
That's a very modern way of looking at it (and that isn't a compliment).  Yes, Jesus affirms the story of Noah by using it.  But does he use it as literal?  Historical?  I don't believe so.

BUt you cannot be sure either way. Isn't that the reason for the continued study into those words?

If the original was not intended that way, it would make more sense that He affirms it in the same way it was originally used.  That is to say, in the days of Noah, the people were wicked and in need of a re-birth, to have the filth of the world washed away.

The checksum on that works... Jesus did indeed wash away the sins of the world via a new birth.  What He did not do, was obliterate the entire population of the earth, saving only a single family of people.
The purpose of the article was to discuss a non-literal meaning for the flood.  A meaning which actually has some relevance to us today.

I see this and agree with it. But see more of a tie in to NT teachings then you do

It is strange to me that so many Christians want the Bible to be primarily a history book.  You do realize that the book is more powerful and relevant if it conveys spiritual truths, than if it conveys literal history, right?  That doesn't undermine its validity; it increases it.

And why should it not be both? I read it that way.

It would be so extremely pedantic if that were the case.  Everyone has been born.  That's like if you went to a class in computer science and the first thing the teacher said was, "first, you need to have hands."  Yes, we all have hands here, no need to specifically mention it.

But it still leaves Nicodemus wondering as he never got a satisfying answer. Either by design because he was not going to make the grade by the way he asked his own questions, showing his doubt or by design to leave the future reader looking for
their own definitive answers.

It does tie out, both with Jesus mentioning water baptism, and Paul invoking Noah's flood as a type of baptism.

And that my friend is the sum total of importance from the article you posted... at least to me.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

But you cannot be sure either way. Isn't that the reason for the continued study into those words?

There's a lot that isn't provable.  We are left to determine what is plausible and what isn't (and that is ok).

But there are some things that are dis-provable.  The occurrence of a literal, massive, worldwide, sudden-onset flood in the year 2348 BC can be disproved.  (This is the date determined by using Bishop Ussher's Biblical chronology, as most YEC's do).

That isn't to say there hasn't been a literal worldwide flood.  There definitely has been one; more than one, even.  But the most recent worldwide flood can be determined to be no earlier than about 10,500 BC.  That would make the gap between the writing of the Old Testament and that flood about 3x as long as the gap between us and Moses.

Is the Old Testament writing about an event that was 8,000 years before it was written?  Probably not.  I don't find that plausible at all, given what we know about humanity during the Neolithic period and the enormity of the gap in time.

And why should it not be both? I read it that way.

There are some places where reading it as both/and works.  I don't think this is one of them because we have evidence of human civilization during that timeframe continuing without the interruption of a giant flood killing literally everyone.  And we have evidence of humanity existing before the dates that YEC's want to put on the creation of Adam and Eve, as well.  If the Old Testament is recording a literal historical flood, it wasn't a global one. 

But I think what it's actually recording is the creation of the nation of Israel, which was accomplished through THIS baptism of adoption:

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (1Corinthians 10)

But it still leaves Nicodemus wondering as he never got a satisfying answer. Either by design because he was not going to make the grade by the way he asked his own questions, showing his doubt or by design to leave the future reader looking for their own definitive answers.

It seems to me that Nicodemus understood the answer. 

Jarrod

[Rella]

There's a lot that isn't provable.  We are left to determine what is plausible and what isn't (and that is ok).

We are left to determine what is plausible ( and resonable) to ourselves. Not all agree.

But there are some things that are dis-provable.  The occurrence of a literal, massive, worldwide, sudden-onset flood in the year 2348 BC can be disproved.  (This is the date determined by using Bishop Ussher's Biblical chronology, as most YEC's do).

Well, at the risk of showing my lack of knowledge... who the heck is Bishop Ussher and why does what he calculates have more weight then another?

Um... I fully agree that being so specific as to a year 2348BC should be disproved...  and so should the guessing of
we get about 2472 B.C. for the Flood year in ( https://www.icr.org/article/when-did-noahs-flood-happen/)

That isn't to say there hasn't been a literal worldwide flood.  There definitely has been one; more than one, even.  But the most recent worldwide flood can be determined to be no earlier than about 10,500 BC.  That would make the gap between the writing of the Old Testament and that flood about 3x as long as the gap between us and Moses.

I see no problem with this.

Is the Old Testament writing about an event that was 8,000 years before it was written?

It is possible considering the length of time from the telling of  Creation by inspiration.

Probably not.  I don't find that plausible at all, given what we know about humanity during the Neolithic period and the enormity of the gap in time.
There are some places where reading it as both/and works.  I don't think this is one of them because we have evidence of human civilization during that timeframe continuing without the interruption of a giant flood killing literally everyone.  And we have evidence of humanity existing before the dates that YEC's want to put on the creation of Adam and Eve, as well.  If the Old Testament is recording a literal historical flood, it wasn't a global one.

We shall continue to disagree on this....

But I think what it's actually recording is the creation of the nation of Israel, which was accomplished through THIS baptism of adoption:

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (1Corinthians 10)

It seems to me that Nicodemus understood the answer.  [/size]

Jarrod

Here is a little light reading for you to tear apart.... A quite easy and rapid read.

I did not quote it all as there are pictures through out . All bolding and color is mine

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-flood/

For the first 1,800 years, the virtually universal belief in the church was that Noah's flood was a historical, year-long, global catastrophe. But in the early 19th century, the idea of millions of years became entrenched in the infant science of geology. Most of the church quickly accepted that idea, so by about 1850, most Christians abandoned that belief about the flood.1 Today, most Christians, including most professing Christian geologists, believe that Noah's flood was either a myth (i.e., it never happened) or a large but localized flood in the Mesopotamian Valley of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (modern-day Iraq) described in exaggerated language.

In this article, I briefly present the biblical evidence that Noah's flood was a global, catastrophic flood capable of producing most of the geological evidence that most geologists assign to hundreds of millions of years of gradual change.2 The geological reasons for believing in this global flood and a young earth are presented elsewhere.

(And I find this not just interesting but compelling from the link...)

Noah's Flood Was Global.
The flood was not localized in the Mesopotamian valley, as many Christians believe, but was global in extent. When the waters reached the highest, there was no land above sea level anywhere on the planet.

2. Height of the Flood. Only a global flood would cover all the high mountains under the heavens by at least 15 cubits (about 25 feet or 7 meters: Genesis 7:19). Since water always seeks the lowest level, to cover just the mountains in the Middle East would result in a global flood.

3. Duration of the Flood. From the beginning of the flood until the people and animals disembarked on dry ground was 371 days (Genesis 7:11 and 8:14). The reference to 40 days (Genesis 7:12–18) refers to the continuous, torrential rains, but the fountains of the deep did not close and the rains did not stop until the 150th day (Genesis 8:2). It then took another 221 days for the waters to retreat and the land to sufficiently dry out. No local flood could last that long.


6. Landing of the Ark. It landed in the mountains (plural in Hebrew) of Ararat (likely modern-day eastern Turkey), near the top of the highest mountain somewhere in that region at that time. It was 74 days before any nearby mountains could be seen (Genesis 8:4–5). No local flood could raise the ark to this altitude. And only a global flood would require this much time to recede as earth movements uplifted other mountains and the waters retreated into new ocean basins so that other nearby mountains became visible
[/size]

I shall stop with the copy now as it just needs to be read and considered.

Do I say this Dr. is correct?  But certainly makes some points others have failed to address.

[Alan]

He presents a biblical interpretation of what he believes to a global event, nevertheless, science indicates otherwise. You can stick with the narrative that science is lying to us for some strange reason, or that there must be an alternate explanation.

[Amo]

He presents a biblical interpretation of what he believes to a global event, nevertheless, science indicates otherwise. You can stick with the narrative that science is lying to us for some strange reason, or that there must be an alternate explanation.

Yes, baptism is a sign of ones death, burial, and resurrection in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore the flood being reckoned as the death, burial, and resurrection of the world is certainly tenable. Changed from being inhabited by people in rebellion against God, to a new beginning by those who believed in and followed God's instructions for their lives. Of course, denying the flood was global pretty much destroys that lesson. As well as directly contradicting the testimony of scripture.

1Pe 3:17 For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

This lesson is taught by the same Apostle who also taught that which all evolutionists and those of the false sciences "so called" of this world, deny -

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

It is the bogus "so called" sciences of this world alone which deny the blatant evidence of the global flood found all over the world. Mass graveyards of fossilized plant and animal life buried everywhere, and rapidly at that, under muddy and or watery conditions. This is the willing ignorance of "so called" scientists today, described by Peter in the above scriptures. Among many other scientific evidences of the same effect. Holy scripture is quite clear about the "so called" science of fallen humanity. Those who place their faith in such, are deceived.

1Ti 6:17 Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; 18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; 19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. 20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.

[Rella]

He presents a biblical interpretation of what he believes to a global event, nevertheless, science indicates otherwise. You can stick with the narrative that science is lying to us for some strange reason, or that there must be an alternate explanation.

He at least presents his biblical interpretation of a global event.

We know you do not agree, but do not bring science into the mix if it counters what was inspired by God to be written.

He is not trying to come up with an alternative that would prove the bible wrong, as so many scientists do.

Gotta remember it is scientists who are responsible for the Covid escape from Wuhan by playing around and playing God.

Is science lying to us? Not if they truly do not believe they are wrong and trying to spin things.

But also, never forget it is the scientists who now are claiming men can get pregnant and give birth.

Are they lying... they say no because they believe it.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Well, at the risk of showing my lack of knowledge... who the heck is Bishop Ussher and why does what he calculates have more weight then another?

He was an Irish bishop, scholar of history, etc who happened to live in the right place and right time.  Wikipedia links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher#Chronology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

Um... I fully agree that being so specific as to a year 2348BC should be disproved...  and so should the guessing of
we get about 2472 B.C. for the Flood year in ( https://www.icr.org/article/when-did-noahs-flood-happen/)

At issue is the method Bishop Ussher used... which is to try to add up all the "years" given in the Bible.  It doesn't work.  The Bible, particularly Genesis, is edited together from disparate source such that continuity like that doesn't exist.  Also, during the earlier parts of history, mankind wasn't measuring solar years.

Here is a little light reading for you to tear apart.... A quite easy and rapid read.

I did not quote it all as there are pictures through out . All bolding and color is mine

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-flood/

The problem here is that it ONLY uses the Bible as a source, and it assumes the Bible to be literal and free of contradictions.  Basically, he's assumed his conclusion is true, before starting.

Jarrod

[Alan]

He at least presents his biblical interpretation of a global event.

We know you do not agree, but do not bring science into the mix if it counters what was inspired by God to be written.

He is not trying to come up with an alternative that would prove the bible wrong, as so many scientists do.

Gotta remember it is scientists who are responsible for the Covid escape from Wuhan by playing around and playing God.

Is science lying to us? Not if they truly do not believe they are wrong and trying to spin things.

But also, never forget it is the scientists who now are claiming men can get pregnant and give birth.

Are they lying... they say no because they believe it.

That's not much different than pinning every crime done in the name of Jesus on Christianity itself, and there have been thousands of them throughout history.

Why is that every time we mention science we have to hear about the latest politico chirpings, when these things have literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand, or the context of the discussion, any more than Christians are responsible for the crusades or the inquisition.

[4WD]

It is the bogus "so called" sciences of this world alone which deny the blatant evidence of the global flood found all over the world.

You really need to stop any of your analysis or assessments of "sciences".  You only demonstrate again your nearly complete lack of any understanding about science. Science does not deny any evidence.  The fact that you come to a different conclusion about what the evidence indicates does not make science "bogus" or "so-called" or wrong.

[Amo]

You really need to stop any of your analysis or assessments of "sciences".  You only demonstrate again your nearly complete lack of any understanding about science. Science does not deny any evidence.  The fact that you come to a different conclusion about what the evidence indicates does not make science "bogus" or "so-called" or wrong.

Hmmm? So if Alan says science tells us there was no global flood, such is an acceptable use of the word science? But if I say such science is bogus, because the evidence of a global flood is all over the world, I demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about science? And this is any different than all the nuts out there today shaking their fingers at everyone and saying believe the science, how? I don't need to stop anything, and you most certainly may continue wasting your time trying to tell me to do so.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Hmmm? So if Alan says science tells us there was no global flood, such is an acceptable use of the word science? But if I say such science is bogus, because the evidence of a global flood is all over the world, I demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about science? And this is any different than all the nuts out there today shaking their fingers at everyone and saying believe the science, how? I don't need to stop anything, and you most certainly may continue wasting your time trying to tell me to do so.

Basically, yes.  You are a known commodity at this point.  You continually regurgitate articles that are pseudoscience, laden with misinformation.

For instance, the one you posted right here, which I deleted.  This is my thread, and I will thank you not to post giant text-walls full of off-topic crap here.

Jarrod

[Alan]

But if I say such science is bogus, because the evidence of a global flood is all over the world, I demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about science?

There is no such evidence, so yes, you lack a complete understanding of science.

[Amo]

Very well then, I leave you to your censored domain. Where one deletes presented evidence, and another then declares that no such evidence exists. Well done thou good and faithful servants. You are adapting well to the new ways of the new world order, building back better, in line with the great reset. Which is nothing but the reestablishment of old world orders during the dark ages.

[4WD]

What a self-righteous babbling accuser.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Very well then, I leave you to your censored domain. Where one deletes presented evidence, and another then declares that no such evidence exists. Well done thou good and faithful servants. You are adapting well to the new ways of the new world order, building back better, in line with the great reset. Which is nothing but the reestablishment of old world orders during the dark ages.

This is my topic.  If you want to talk about the topic, that's fine.

You've got multiple topics right here on this very site where you can post to your heart's content.  If you want to poop out a bunch of irrelevant gibberish, use one of those.

[4WD]

Is the story of Noah and the Flood a symbol of birth?

One can find so many instances of symbols, types etc. in God's word which may not be so identified directly.  Those of you who have listened to Jordan Peterson may have heard some of his analysis of events recorded in the Bible.  I find many of his analyses very interesting. Jesus does that Himself in so many of his parables.  For example, in the parables of the prodigal son or the good Samaritan, Jesus may actually be relaying a story about actual events.  It is not so much the story of events, real or imagined, that he is relating; rather, Jesus is using the events, real or imagined, as symbols of something far more significant.

I find such things about the Bible absolutely fascinating.  It is but one more feature of God's word that convinces me of its absolute truth.  So that even if the story of Noah and the Flood is a symbol of birth, we have to ask what the significance of that symbol is. In the case of Noah and the Flood, there are several.

[Rella]

Why is that every time we mention science we have to hear about the latest politico chirpings, when these things have literally nothing to do with the discussion at hand, or the context of the discussion,

Because when science enters the equation conversations bounce away from anything biblical. Unless, of course, that bolsters what science says... Of course, those are far and few between and vanishing at an astonishing rate.

At one time science backed up that man was man and woman was woman, and it took one of each to procreate, even with no Godly mention, simply because they had yet to discover it to be not so necessary.

By todays standard you could not even suggest that science is wrong as the bible indicates it takes a man and a woman because now they say that is "fake news".

[4WD]

Rella, It isn't science that seeks to redefine the meaning of the two sexes, man and woman. So far as I know, there is no science that denies that a man is a man and a woman is a woman and it takes both to procreate.  That is simply Leftist, i.e., Marxist, newspeak.

[Rella]

Rella, It isn't science that seeks to redefine the meaning of the two sexes, man and woman. So far as I know, there is no science that denies that a man is a man and a woman is a woman and it takes both to procreate.  That is simply Leftist, i.e., Marxist, newspeak.

Well, who is it playing God that now claims men can be pregnant?

Who was it that came up with artificial insemination.

Who was it that runs all those sperm banks so some woman get pick what the baby will look like .

None of these is the way God cautioned against in the bible called fornication.....

But hey? Guess that is a way to have your cake and eat it... certainly eliminates the fornication of things.

Who was it that came up with cloning. Life without a partnership of any kind?

Who is it that is seeking to alter the sex of boys and girls when they want it? If this does not redefine the meaning of the two sexes I dont know what is.

And if these recognitions make me a leftist... so be it

[Alan]

Well, who is it playing God that now claims men can be pregnant?

Who is it that is seeking to alter the sex of boys and girls when they want it? If this does not redefine the meaning of the two sexes I dont know what is.

Do you think science gave one minute to these ideas before someone came forward and made it a topic of debate?
Do you think science gave one minute to these ideas before some therapist deemed that it's plausible?
Do you think science gave one minute to these ideas before some inclusion education expert declared it to be legitimate?

If you want to get technical, science still defines male and female by their biological sexual organs, there are some exceptions in a minute population from abnormalities during gestation. Gender OTOH, is the hot topic, and it seems to revolve more around a persons state of being, and the studies of such.

It's hardly science when someone tells you that you are a man based on your reproductive organs, and you proceed to tell them that I'm a woman because that's how I feel. No one wants to fights with inclusiveness in this day and age, and it's 100% politics behind enforcing these policies around our countries. 


You can keep building this strawman if you believe it to be a legitimate debate, but I see no similarities in geology, archeology, and astronomy with the psychology of gender therapy. 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Because when science enters the equation conversations bounce away from anything biblical. Unless, of course, that bolsters what science says... Of course, those are far and few between and vanishing at an astonishing rate.

At one time science backed up that man was man and woman was woman, and it took one of each to procreate, even with no Godly mention, simply because they had yet to discover it to be not so necessary.

By todays standard you could not even suggest that science is wrong as the bible indicates it takes a man and a woman because now they say that is "fake news".

That's not science doing that.  It's political.

I recently had a thread about how Richard Dawkins, of all people, is out there campaigning against woke hiring and grant-making within academia.  Dawkins is the poster-child for science opposing religion.  Even that guy doesn't hold with that nonsense.

Jarrod

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Is the story of Noah and the Flood a symbol of birth?

One can find so many instances of symbols, types etc. in God's word which may not be so identified directly.  Those of you who have listened to Jordan Peterson may have heard some of his analysis of events recorded in the Bible.  I find many of his analyses very interesting.

I find Peterson fascinating.  I haven't listed to a lot of his Biblical lectures (yet), but I started and the very first one, on creation in Genesis 1...

He was talking about order and chaos, and male and female roles in creation, which is stuff I've been posting about here on GCF for a decade or so, now.  And that's an interpretation of the text that a tiny minority of people hold (or have even heard of), and one grounded in literature and history (and not science).

I found it very encouraging to find someone independently coming to the same ideas and conclusions I have.

Jarrod

[Rella]

That's not science doing that.  It's political.

I recently had a thread about how Richard Dawkins, of all people, is out there campaigning against woke hiring and grant-making within academia.  Dawkins is the poster-child for science opposing religion.  Even that guy doesn't hold with that nonsense.

Jarrod

Not altogether.

For those young girls going into the hospitals to have their breasts removed, or the boys having their genetals removed... that is not a political move. That is a science believing doctors acting because he feels those kids have the right and they comply.

For the doctors and scientists who came up with the means to block puberty " ie. puberty blockers" that also is not political it is science who has provided a way for all those young ones to get what they think they want until they are old enough to make it permanent if they so desire.

"science" is all over this.

[Alan]

Not altogether.

For those young girls going into the hospitals to have their breasts removed, or the boys having their genetals removed... that is not a political move. That is a science believing doctors acting because he feels those kids have the right and they comply.

For the doctors and scientists who came up with the means to block puberty " ie. puberty blockers" that also is not political it is science who has provided a way for all those young ones to get what they think they want until they are old enough to make it permanent if they so desire.

"science" is all over this.

Of course it's political, that isn't even an argument. Science didn't create these crazy notions, it was the minds of the people that desired these things that set the end result in motion.

[Texas Conservative]

There is a huge difference between hard science and "soft science."

The cutting off of tissue is informed by hard science.  Doing it for gender identity issues is "soft science."

[4WD]

What is the science behind the current "gender identity" issues?  The answer is none; it is all pure politics, pure Marxian politics at that.

[Alan]

There is a huge difference between hard science and "soft science."

The cutting off of tissue is informed by hard science.  Doing it for gender identity issues is "soft science."

There exists a handoff there. "can it be done"?, "we'll look into it".

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

 

There is a huge difference between hard science and "soft science."

The cutting off of tissue is informed by hard science.  Doing it for gender identity issues is "soft science."

There exists a handoff there. "can it be done"?, "we'll look into it".

I feel like there's a dirty joke in here and I'm not quite getting it.   

[Rella]

Do you think science gave one minute to these ideas before someone came forward and made it a topic of debate?
Do you think science gave one minute to these ideas before some therapist deemed that it's plausible?
Do you think science gave one minute to these ideas before some inclusion education expert declared it to be legitimate?

If you want to get technical, science still defines male and female by their biological sexual organs, there are some exceptions in a minute population from abnormalities during gestation. Gender OTOH, is the hot topic, and it seems to revolve more around a persons state of being, and the studies of such.

It's hardly science when someone tells you that you are a man based on your reproductive organs, and you proceed to tell them that I'm a woman because that's how I feel. No one wants to fights with inclusiveness in this day and age, and it's 100% politics behind enforcing these policies around our countries. 


You can keep building this strawman if you believe it to be a legitimate debate, but I see no similarities in geology, archeology, and astronomy with the psychology of gender therapy. 

Myopic view in my opinion.

Do I think science gave one minute of idea to yada yada ....

Does it matter. They got involved no matter how the idea came to them. Just like it was some geologist who found something that got science all involved in dateing whatever it was....

And no...  I am not debating this. You see the glass half full and I see it half empty... ergo... we both are right.

[Alan]

::faint::There exists a handoff there. "can it be done"?, "we'll look into it".
I feel like there's a dirty joke in here and I'm not quite getting it.   

Nah, it's referencing the idea that science created the idea of puberty blockers and gender reassignment. I would argue the demand for those things was in full view long before a biologist undertook the task.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Nah, it's referencing the idea that science created the idea of puberty blockers and gender reassignment. I would argue the demand for those things was in full view long before a biologist undertook the task.

Eunuchs have existed for longer than recorded history.  The ancient Phoenicians made eunuchs for prostitution who painted their faces with (presumably toxic) pulverized metal powders so they could look pretty for their Johns (uh... Yohannes?)

Nothing new under the sun...

Jarrod

[Alan]

Eunuchs have existed for longer than recorded history.  The ancient Phoenicians made eunuchs for prostitution who painted their faces with (presumably toxic) pulverized metal powders so they could look pretty for their Johns (uh... Yohannes?)

Nothing new under the sun...

Jarrod

Weren't those eunuchs born that way?