TromboneChat

Has anyone here seen the movie "Is Genesis History?".

It's on Netflix and I think it's worth watching for both the religious and not.

What do you all think?

Haven't watched it? Yet?

I looked at the IMDb reviews? Ouch?

BTW, there's an old Hollywood maxim that a sure way to jinx a movie is to have a question mark in the title?

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jul 09, 2017, 08:56AMHaven't watched it? Yet?

I looked at the IMDb reviews? Ouch?

BTW, there's an old Hollywood maxim that a sure way to jinx a movie is to have a question mark in the title?
I agree the IMDB reviews are bad, and I also have to agree with a lot of them.  But I think watching it is an education nonetheless.

I gave it a few minutes.

He started out with that gully near Mt. St. Helens and I thought "Ah, he's going to say that's like the Grand Canyon" and yup, the next thing was the Grand Canyon.

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jul 09, 2017, 08:56AMBTW, there's an old Hollywood maxim that a sure way to jinx a movie is to have a question mark in the title?
My parents have letters from a family ancestor written in the civil war. Copies, anyhow, the originals are now in some university library.

Is that history?

Well no. History is "the study of past events, particularly in human affairs."

At best, they would be a primary resource. But not actually history.

Kinda falls in a similar path with genesis. I's writings of and about the time, not studying it.

So when the question of the premise itself is poorly chosen, I'm afraid I don't expect much better to follow...

Quote from: B0B on Jul 09, 2017, 01:41PMMy parents have letters from a family ancestor written in the civil war. Copies, anyhow, the originals are now in some university library.

Is that history?

Well no. History is "the study of past events, particularly in human affairs."

At best, they would be a primary resource. But not actually history.

Kinda falls in a similar path with genesis. I's writings of and about the time, not studying it.

So when the question of the premise itself is poorly chosen, I'm afraid I don't expect much better to follow...

Not that I expect this program to be any good, but in defense of the title, the study of past events could qualify as an interpretation of Genesis, such that it is a recording of what the people at the time believed of past events. The dividing line between a document that is a study of other history and a document being important as a primary source in history gets pretty muddy after enough time has passed.

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jul 09, 2017, 12:30PMI gave it a few minutes.

He started out with that gully near Mt. St. Helens and I thought "Ah, he's going to say that's like the Grand Canyon" and yup, the next thing was the Grand Canyon.
It gets better Robert.  The first time I watched, there is a point about 1/3 the way through, and it was so hilarious I ended up spitting my wine out. For sure a lot of it is predictable, but some of it is just wild.

Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Jul 09, 2017, 01:51PMNot that I expect this program to be any good, but in defense of the title, the study of past events could qualify as an interpretation of Genesis, such that it is a recording of what the people at the time believed of past events.

It's kind of like how "period" movies say as much (or more) about the attitudes and priorities of the people who made the movie as it does about the time periods depicted.

Quote from: Andrew Meronek on Jul 09, 2017, 01:51PMNot that I expect this program to be any good, but in defense of the title, the study of past events could qualify as an interpretation of Genesis, such that it is a recording of what the people at the time believed of past events.

The bold is mine.

I don't think that's true at all.

I grew up in Wisconsin.  We believed Paul Bunyan built the US, the blue ox Babe made the Great Lakes with its hooves.  Well, no, of course we didn't.  Those were tall tales, never intended to be taken seriously. 

I believe that is exactly how the ancients viewed Genesis.  How they would be laughing at us now!  Noah's Ark?  of course that was a Just So story (see Kipling if you're not familiar).  No ancient people who knew first hand how hard boat building is would think any different. 

Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 09, 2017, 06:14PMNo ancient people who knew first hand how hard boat building is would think any different. 
Ahh, but Noah had divine providence.  He could not fail to build a boat, especially one of such ridiculous dimensions, that floated perfectly.

I want to know why he didn't bring any dinosaurs on board.  Or how the flood managed to kill off all the aquatic dinosaurs.  None of this was mentioned in the good ol' Bible.

Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 09, 2017, 06:14PMThe bold is mine.

I don't think that's true at all.

I grew up in Wisconsin.  We believed Paul Bunyan built the US, the blue ox Babe made the Great Lakes with its hooves.  Well, no, of course we didn't.  Those were tall tales, never intended to be taken seriously. 

I believe that is exactly how the ancients viewed Genesis.  How they would be laughing at us now!  Noah's Ark?  of course that was a Just So story (see Kipling if you're not familiar).  No ancient people who knew first hand how hard boat building is would think any different. 


Jesus speaks of the story of Noah as a true event so I think people in New Testament times did take it seriously

Is Genesis history?

Yes, but Phil Collins has gone from strength to strength.


Aw cmon, someone had to say it....

Quote from: sonicsilver on Jul 10, 2017, 06:21AMIs Genesis history?

Yes, but Phil Collins has gone from strength to strength.


Aw cmon, someone had to say it....

Quote from: robcat2075 on Jul 10, 2017, 06:15AM
Jesus speaks of the story of Noah as a true event so I think people in New Testament times did take it seriously

You could be right.  That's two separate statements though.

One is that Jesus spoke of the flood as a true event, the other is that people took it seriously.  One does not depend on the other.

Jesus preached largely in parables and metaphors.  He always had to explain them - nobody ever got the point without that.  So it is possible he did not mean it literally. 

It is possible that the people took it seriously regardless of what Jesus thought.  I don't know of any independent way to check that.

It is possible that Jesus took it literally.  That's problematic though.  We know that there was no global flood, the evidence is overwhelming.  So if Jesus was wrong on this, we've opened a can of worms. 

Quote from: sonicsilver on Jul 10, 2017, 06:21AMIs Genesis history?

Yes, but Phil Collins has gone from strength to strength.


Aw cmon, someone had to say it....
True! 

Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 10, 2017, 06:50AMYou could be right.  That's two separate statements though.

One is that Jesus spoke of the flood as a true event, the other is that people took it seriously.  One does not depend on the other.
The first is evidence of the second, as I see it.



QuoteJesus preached largely in parables and metaphors.  He always had to explain them - nobody ever got the point without that.  So it is possible he did not mean it literally.
But he doesn't have to explain the Flood. It seems to be something "everyone knows".


The passage where he mentions it...

Quote36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

As I read it, Jesus is saying, "it's happened before and it will happen again"

If it were regarded as just a fairy tale it would not be a useful rhetorical device.


The Catholic Encyclopedia's discussion of the historicity of The Flood cites Jesus' reference to it and those of other writers in the Bible as evidence that it is true.

Quote(a) The following are some of the New Testament passages which imply that the Deluge was a real historical event: "And as in the days of Noah, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noah entered into the ark, and they knew not. till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew 24:37-39). In these words Christ regards the Flood with its circumstances as being not less real than the last days will be of which He speaks in the passage. The same view concerning the Flood, Christ implies in Luke 17:26-27. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi, 7) the inspired writer is not less clear about the historicity of the Flood: "By faith, Noah having received an answer concerning those things which as yet were not seen, moved with fear, framed the ark for the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world; and was instituted heir of the justice which is by faith." St. Peter (1 Peter 3:20) too refers to the ark and the Flood as historical facts: "When they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water". He returns to the same teaching in II Peter, ii, 5. We might appeal to Isaiah 54:9; Nah., i, 8; Ezekiel 14:14; Sirach 44:18 sq.; Psalm 28:10; 31:6; but what has been said sufficiently shows that the Bible urges the historicity of the Deluge story.
Jesus, Peter and Paul all represent it as real.



QuoteIt is possible that the people took it seriously regardless of what Jesus thought.  I don't know of any independent way to check that.

It is possible that Jesus took it literally.  That's problematic though.  We know that there was no global flood, the evidence is overwhelming. 


So if Jesus was wrong on this, we've opened a can of worms. 

Yup, hard to find some wiggle room in there.

Quote from: timothy42b on Jul 10, 2017, 06:50AMYou could be right.  That's two separate statements though.

One is that Jesus spoke of the flood as a true event, the other is that people took it seriously.  One does not depend on the other.
The first is evidence of the second, as I see it.



QuoteJesus preached largely in parables and metaphors.  He always had to explain them - nobody ever got the point without that.  So it is possible he did not mean it literally.
But he doesn't have to explain the Flood. It seems to be something "everyone knows".


The passage where he mentions it...

Quote36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

As I read it, Jesus is saying, "it's happened before and it will happen again"

If it were regarded as just a fairy tale it would not be a useful rhetorical device.


The Catholic Encyclopedia's discussion of the historicity of The Flood cites Jesus' reference to it and those of other writers in the Bible as evidence that it is true.

Quote(a) The following are some of the New Testament passages which imply that the Deluge was a real historical event: "And as in the days of Noah, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, even till that day in which Noah entered into the ark, and they knew not. till the flood came, and took them all away; so also shall the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew 24:37-39). In these words Christ regards the Flood with its circumstances as being not less real than the last days will be of which He speaks in the passage. The same view concerning the Flood, Christ implies in Luke 17:26-27. In the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi, 7) the inspired writer is not less clear about the historicity of the Flood: "By faith, Noah having received an answer concerning those things which as yet were not seen, moved with fear, framed the ark for the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world; and was instituted heir of the justice which is by faith." St. Peter (1 Peter 3:20) too refers to the ark and the Flood as historical facts: "When they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water". He returns to the same teaching in II Peter, ii, 5. We might appeal to Isaiah 54:9; Nah., i, 8; Ezekiel 14:14; Sirach 44:18 sq.; Psalm 28:10; 31:6; but what has been said sufficiently shows that the Bible urges the historicity of the Deluge story.
Jesus, Peter and Paul all represent it as real.



QuoteIt is possible that the people took it seriously regardless of what Jesus thought.  I don't know of any independent way to check that.

It is possible that Jesus took it literally.  That's problematic though.  We know that there was no global flood, the evidence is overwhelming. 


So if Jesus was wrong on this, we've opened a can of worms. 

Yup, hard to find some wiggle room in there.