Posted: Oct 09, 2010 3:58 pm
by quas
These days, there is quite a lot of Christians who are not quite Biblical literalists. I say "not quite" because even though they literally believe Jesus rose from the dead, they don't believe that certain events in the OT actually happened. So, instead of being a Young Earth Creationist, they might call themselves "theistic evolutionists". For them, the flood and Noah's Ark is just a myth who were probably copied from earlier flood myths. I got into a discussion with one of them a few days ago. I told him his beliefs probably differed from early Christians, particularly the Church fathers, whom I believe were quite the literalists. And this is because he lives in modern times and thus had, in light of new superseding evidence, changed his beliefs accordingly. Had he lived prior to Darwin and the discovery of the Gilgamesh tablets, he would have been the typical Christian fundie literalist believing that a serpent could really talk to humans. He disagreed, insisting that even early Christianity already had a "strong tradition" for not taking Genesis as a literal historical account of humanity. Is he right? If so, why? What reason would the typical pre-modernity Christian have to believe that the flood never really happened?